W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-annotation@w3.org > January to June 2001

Re: vocab proposal: language of annotation (i18n support)

From: Matthew Wilson <matthew@mjwilson.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:02:58 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010505110238.00b53a80@pop3.demon.co.uk>
To: Art Barstow <barstow@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, www-annotation@w3.org
At 04:20 05/05/01 -0400, Art Barstow wrote:
>On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:49:23AM +0100, Matthew Wilson wrote:
> > At 06:00 01/05/01 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> >
> > >(Just a quick note to capture an idea that cropped up over lunch with 
> Marja)
> > >
> > >Our XML/RDF annotation vocabularies should capture the language primarily
> > >used in any textual content within the annotation. For eg., as a
> > >dc:language property of the annotation.
> >
> > Would current clients break if we started posting annotations with
> > dc:language properties straightaway?
>
>The clients should not break if they were written properly.
>If adding such a property to the RDF that encodes an annotation
>breaks a client then the client doesn't understand a key feature
>of RDF - its extensibility.
>
>Adding a new property to an annotation should not cause problems
>for Amaya or the Annotea bookmarklets.  Of course, these Annotea
>clients may not do anything with the new property but they certainly
>should not break.


That's what I thought. I may experiment with this in Annozilla...

Matthew
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2001 06:03:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:19:17 GMT