W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

Re: Proposed modification to syntax re xml:lang

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:29:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030929112629.02f295d0@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I don't feel strongly, but...

I think suggestion (1) is fine

I think suggestion (2) is a tad over-prescriptive.  It seems to require 
inclusion of xml:lang="" even when there is no in-scope non-empty language 
tag.  Also, if the meaning of parseType=Literal is clear (which I think it 
is), then adding this makes no difference in any case.

#g
--

At 12:13 29/09/03 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>I would like to hear whether anyone would support or oppose the following
>proposal from
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0250
>[[
>  here are some possible concessions:
>
>1) Add to syntax, on the rdf:parseType="Literal" cosntruction
>
>A parser MAY warn if there is an inscope non-empty xml:lang.
>
>2) Add to syntax, in the bit about generating RDF/XML
>
>When generating rdf:parseType="Literal", you SHOULD generate xml:lang="".
>]]
>
>(perhaps the MAY should even be SHOULD)
>
>If there is support I could suggest this in more detail.
>It would mean that formally we were more in tune with the xml:lang scoping
>rules without any real shift in our position.
>
>Jeremy

------------
Graham Klyne
GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Monday, 29 September 2003 06:32:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 29 September 2003 06:32:57 EDT