- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 08:24:09 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, timbl <timbl@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > [...] > > Regardless, my request stands: > > > > | please give an > > | example (or several examples) of how RDF users use xml:lang, > > | and what software they use to process it according to > > | their expecatations? > > Why are you bringing this up again? Because I have looked high and low for the use cases you refer to below, and I can't find them. > We have been round this already. > My recollection is that we examined this issue, we looked at use cases, we found > some where the M&S spec of how to handle xml:lang was useful and we found no > major problems with it. Then it should be easy enough to satisfy my request by pointing into the record. What are these use cases? Who's using xml:lang, and how? i.e. is there some software out there that I can use as a pattern for how to implement literals in cwm? > We then put that issue aside for a while to look at other issues with literals, > since it was not right to make any decision about xml:lang without considering > those other issues at the same time. We have since had a look at the parseType > literal issue and are now considering datatyping. > > If you want to bring the xml:lang part of the problem up again at this stage, > then the question I have is what are these other critical issues to which you > referred earlier. I didn't refer to any other critical issues: just that I can't "see" xml:lang using rdf properties. > Please make the case there is a real problem. I have made the case to my satisfaction. If you're not convinced, then, well, you're not convinced. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 20 October 2001 09:25:16 UTC