- From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:36:45 -0700
- To: "Elias Torres" <elias@torrez.us>
- Cc: "Ian Davis" <iand@internetalchemy.org>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Hi Elias, With respect, reading this makes me think that you have not understood the issue. I do apologise if it is me that has misunderstood your comments, but here goes...... > I don't think I'm here to prove you wrong. I believe most of the > statements you refer to are both logical and correct. You have excellent > points but I think you are only looking at your facts only. I don't rule that out...but to be fair, so far I have replied to all other 'facts' that have been presented on this list. > I repeat > once again: we are not asking to remove such an ability, we are only > asking to choose a default that results in less typing most of the > times. I appreciate the repetition Elias, although I did reply to the first statement within about 20 minutes of you posting it! In fact, I was writing a response as you wrote this, so I'm not sure we really need to adopt such a tone. Anyway, the current RDFa spec does not require anything 'extra' to be typed one way or the other, since *all* data is of type XML literal. Since you seem to be saying that the current RDFa spec requires more typing than having a default of plain literal, I'm now failing to understand what you think the options are. > This argument is about benefit not about who has the most logical > statements or not. Indeed. > The community subscribed to our mailing list is > asking for it to be plain literals: Ivan, Ian and me so far. Asking for what, exactly, to be a plain literal? I thought I understood before, but now I'm really not seeing what is being suggested. > Is a plain > literal default right or wrong? I'd say it depends on your perspective > and assumptions. That's obviously true! But the point of discussing it is for one or other 'side' to persuade the other to _alter_ their perspective and assumptions, so that we near enough agree. :) That's what I mean by 'logical'...so, for example, what is the logical foundation for saying that the default data type *in an XHTML document* is a plain literal? A good, clear answer to that question would fundamentally alter my perspective and assumptions, and I'd be happy to see the spec altered to reflect this. > This is an open and issue and we need to address it. Great...I look forward to it. But I would say, again with all due respect, that as things stand I don't feel we're in a position to discuss it on a telecon, and personally I would like to see further clarification on this list from those who want to see the default *post-parse* datatype changed to plain literals. Regards, Mark -- Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 03:36:49 UTC