Re: I made an editorial pass over Section 5 of the document

Boris Motik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I've just made a pass over Section 5 of the rdf:text document. All my changes
> are largely cosmetic: I mainly rephrased certain bits of the document.
> 
> I did, however, notice one problem: the definition of the
> 
>     fn:matches-language-range
> 
> function does not seem to be completely clear, for two different reasons.
> 
> - It is not clear whether the "otherwise" clause covers the cases of incorrectly
> typed arguments.


{{EdNote|[[User:Bmotik2|Boris Motik]] 06 April 2009| The "otherwise" 
part of this definition is not completely clear. One might get an 
impression that the function returns false even if $arg is not an 
rdf:text data value. I believe this was not the original intention; 
however, I wasn't sure, so I didn't change anything. To avoid confusion, 
I suggest to fully spell out the conditions under which the function 
returns false, and to include the usual sentence that says what happens 
if the arguments are not of the appropriate type.}}

Indeed, the function should return a type error, I made the typing 
conditions explicit and removed the Editor's note, please check.

> - It is not clear whether the function allows for basic or extended language tag
> matching.

My personal feeling is that basic language tag matching is pretty 
pointless. So, I suggest we support extended matching.

BTW: Here, we still refeer to BCP-47. Is that ok ,or given the latest 
changes, it would be advisable to refer to the fixed spec RFC 4647 instead?

Axel

> I've added two new EdNotes explaining that. Please let me know should you find
> any problems any of my changes.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 	Boris
> 
> 


-- 
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, 
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org  url: http://www.polleres.net/

Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 14:08:36 UTC