- 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