W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > sw99@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE xml:lang [was: Issues list - delayed message]

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:37:05 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: sw99@w3.org
At 07:22 PM 4/6/2000 -0500, Ora.Lassila@nokia.com wrote:
>Regarding the xml:lang, I don't think it is a bug. I always thought that it
>would be a characteristic of the string (the literal value), and since M+S
>did not really address primitive data types, it wouldn't have to be
>concerned of xml:lang either.

It was the I18N Working Group who pressured us into not exposing
xml:lang in the RDF graph.

"RDF Model and Syntax Open,Deferred,Closed Issues"

 C.8. Support for language tagging (xml:lang)
 -closed in 19980111;

See also "Internationalization Review of RDF M&S"

But sw99 is not the best place to be discussing the details of
any of these issues (even though it's at least publicly archived
so we can cite pertinent messages elsewhere).
mailto:www-rdf-comments@w3.org is better, and
mailto:www-rdf-interest@w3.org is more better.

>How do we propose adding it? As a qualification of the actual property

I'd actually like to see more structure inside text exposed to
the RDF model.  E.g. I'd like text to have a content-type so
I could know that it was supposed to be application/xml or ...

I'd also use this to handle units of measure in a nicer way; e.g.
the literals ("1",inch) and ("1",USDollar) are distinct and
have RDF-visible properties.

Received on Friday, 7 April 2000 09:37:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:06:24 UTC