Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

>Hi Patrick,
>
>At 12:00 12/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>On 2002-02-12 11:48, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  However, I do not consider, "because
>>>  Patrick says so" to be a good reason.
>>
>>Tut, tut, Brian. Never expected you to.
>
>I note that you have not responded to the following:
>
>However, I would ask the WG, whether they feel that they would owe 
>me, and other developers, an explanation for why, having gone to the 
>trouble of implementing the spec correctly, we should be asked to 
>change our code.

I would say that (1) the spec was ambiguously worded, and you have 
based your code on a risky intepretation of a single sentence, so you 
must be prepared to accept the risks; and
(2) the WG's charter is to clarify the spec. There is inevitably a 
risk, therefore, that code written on the basic of an unclear spec 
may have to be modified when it is clarified. Sorry, life is tough.

>and
>
>I have not seen anything in what you have written that comes close 
>to an explanation of why this change would be a good thing. If there 
>is something I have missed, then could I trouble you please to 
>repeat it, or to provide a reference.

I have to say< I do not see it as being a change. If literals are NOT 
strings, on the other hand, we have to (1) modify N-triples syntax 
(2) rewrite (and probably re-think) every example in every document 
that uses a literal (3) re-write, and probably re-think, the entire 
MT document (4) re-open the datatyping discussion, as new options are 
now possible.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2002 11:38:25 UTC