- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 15:24:53 +0100
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 07:28 PM 7/23/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote:
>>Another possible disadvantage?: not all literals are in some
>>language. It doesn't really make sense to specify a language for, say, a
>>decimal number or a MIME type string.
>
>Why not say that the language for those things is RDF?
Because the definition of xml:lang (which is the defined syntax whose
meaning we are trying to capture) is that the language code used is as
defined by RFC 1766, now obsoleted by RFC 3066, which says:
[[[
2.4 Meaning of the language tag
The language tag always defines a language as spoken (or written,
signed or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of
information to other human beings. Computer languages such as
programming languages are explicitly excluded. There is no
guaranteed relationship between languages whose tags begin with the
same series of subtags; specifically, they are NOT guaranteed to be
mutually intelligible, although it will sometimes be the case that
they are.
]]]
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 12:22:01 UTC