- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:48:08 +0000
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>, Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Mark Birbeck wrote: > > 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. I think the point is that most RDF applications and vocabularies, when they have stringy data, use and expect plain literals. And if people write RDFa with an eye to existing RDF apps rather than ones engineered specifically for the post-RDFa world, they'll do the extra typing to make sure they're also generating plain literals. Dan
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 11:48:23 UTC