- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:00:52 +0100
- To: public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I'm a big fan of adding optional bits to specs. I'm an implementer, so I like optional bits because optional bits tend to be the bits where implementers can have some fun. So what I'm proposing is an optional bit. Where the RDFa API would normally return an object of type RDFLiteral, it should be allowed to return an object of some other type that implements the RDFLiteral interface. If we imagine an RDFa API implementation in a language that supports multiple inheritance, a literal with datatype xsd:dateTime might be returned as an object that's a subclass of RDFLiteral, and also a subclass of the programming language's native datetime object. Or in a language which doesn't do multiple inheritance, it the same literal might be represented as a subclass of RDFLiteral with an extra attribute called "datetime" that contains a copy of the datetime in the programming language's native datetime object. I can imagine implementations wanting to provide such subclasses for types xsd:dateTime (and other XSD date- and time-related datatypes), rdf:XMLLiteral and xsd:anyURI, though I'm not suggesting this option be restricted only to those - if an implementation wants to be able to do something special with xsd:unsignedByte, then why not let it? -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 18:01:30 UTC