- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:13:34 -0500
- To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
> - I don't think the proposal:
[snipped]
> is right, as a string without a language tag would not match one
> with. A consequence would be that people would be discouraged from
> language tagging their strings, in case other people haven't tagged
> *their* strings.
I agree.
> - The above seems to suggest that degrees of fuzziness are required, at
> user option, as with regular search engines.
I don't think that's necessary. How about the following rules:
Literals are equal iff:
1) the strings are equal, and
2a) at least one string does not have a tag, or
2b) one tag is a prefix of the other within the meaning of RFC 3066
(i.e. "fr"/French is not a prefix of "fry"/Frisian but is a prefix
of "FR-CA"/Canadian French).
This treats a missing tag as synonymous with the RFC 3066 language range
"*", which matches any tag.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 12:17:48 UTC