- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:50:58 +0100 (BST)
- To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I appreciate this has been endlessly debated and offer an apology in advance to the chairs (and other participants!), but... Thinking about the xml:lang issue, I recall the xml:base and namespace issues which seem somewhat similar. In particular, there were questions raised about xml fragments "inheriting" xml:base and namespaces from their surrounding RDF/XML, and some kind of fragment trick that produced a surrounding tag carrying all the information, ie <xml:something xmlns:blah="..." xml:base="..."> the content went here </xml:something> Would it not be simpler to say that <property xml:lang="fr">chat</property> was a syntactic shorthand for something like <property rdf:parsetype="Literal"> <xml:something xml:lang="fr">char</xml:something> </property> ? - in other words, punt the language tag into the XML realm, keep literals as simple strings (or the string representation of XML content) and make Pat happier? This has been done to death, but I've had a scan back and I don't recall this coming up before - further apologies if it has already been raised. jan -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk "Don't make me leverage an implementation of a whupass solution on yo' sorry ass" -- why Samuel Jackson never went into management
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 11:51:34 UTC