- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:01:49 +0100
- To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Eric, You kindly provided a use case for this issue. So far we have concluded that M&S states that language is considered to be 'part of' a literal. Of the other two use cases we have, we have concluded that the one provided by Jan Grant can be supported using xml:lang as described in M&S. The other provided by Martyn uses a completely different mechanism for modelling language and the M&S use of xml:lang is neither help nor hindrance. I took an action at the telecon to ask you whether xml:lang as described in M&S is adequate or any help for solving the use case you supplied. Do you have a view on this? Brian
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 16:04:20 UTC