- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 11:29:02 +0100
- 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 UTC