Re: RDFa, XHTML1.1 and @lang (via Twitter)

Well.... I guess I could go review the REC but in my opinion there is no 
room to interpret anything other than xml:lang as defining the language 
for a literal.  If there *were* any room for this, it would be possible 
for different implementations to produce different triples from the same 
source document.  That would be disastrous.  Unless I am missing something.

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Toby,
>
>   
>> Note the phrase "*any* language information". The document then goes on to
>> say that language information *can* be provided using xml:lang, but it
>> doesn't say that other sources of language information cannot be explored.
>>
>> I don't know whether this flexibility was intentional, but it is certainly
>> present in the syntax document. Similar language is employed where it talks
>> about parsing the element for URI mappings.
>>     
>
> Yes...indeed. :)
>
> Unfortunately (in my opinion), there was pressure to restrict the spec
> to *only* RDFa and XHTML, which means that there are weasle words
> around things like base and lang.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>   

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com