Re: Reworked sections on datatypes and literals

> Is this exception for XML literals really justified?
If we were starting again we might well require XML content to be fully
formed XML documents. However, M&S seems to permit


<owl:Ontology rdf:about="" xmlns="...XHTML.." >
   <rdfs:description xml:lang="en">
  This is based on the work done at
  <a href="http://example.edu/">Example University</a>
   </rdfs:description>
</owl:Ontology>

Note that the text inside the XML Literal, but not included in any XML
element within that literal is language specific.
It is a requirement for some far east languages that ruby be supported; and
a general I18N guideline that where natural lang strings are supported,
there should also be support for html markup. This is historically where the
lang tag in XML literals comes from. In order to do away with it, we need to
address these needs in some other way.

We have also discussed this design with the I18N WG, and would risk
last-call comments if we changed the design and failed to meet their
requirements. (I believe the WG is committed to I18N requirements).

I suspect that most WG members would prefer to have done language
differently - i.e. have it explicit within the graph. We decided not to push
the charter on that one.

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 05:28:10 UTC