- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:43:22 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
In the abstract syntax I could specify that either lang is oblig and defaults to "" or that lang="" is illegal. Probably the former is most in tune with XML. DaveB might then need some wordsmithing. Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian McBride > Sent: 19 September 2002 10:21 > To: RDF Core > Subject: Fwd: Erratum to XML 1.0 spec to allow xml:lang="" > > > > Affects rdf/xml syntax? > > Brian > > >Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:31:03 -0400 (EDT) > >X-Sender: pgrosso@172.27.10.30 > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 > >Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:24:23 -0500 > >To: chairs@w3.org, <w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org> > >From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> > >Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org > >X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on LORAX/DTW/ATI(Release 5.0.8 |June > >18, 2001) at 09/18/2002 > > 03:32:29 PM, > > Serialize by Router on LORAX/DTW/ATI(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, > > 2001) at 09/18/2002 > > 03:32:30 PM, > > Serialize complete at 09/18/2002 03:32:30 PM > >Subject: Erratum to XML 1.0 spec to allow xml:lang="" > >Resent-From: chairs@w3.org > >X-Mailing-List: <chairs@w3.org> archive/latest/2129 > >X-Loop: chairs@w3.org > >Sender: chairs-request@w3.org > >Resent-Sender: chairs-request@w3.org > >List-Id: <chairs.w3.org> > >List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/> > >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:chairs-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe> > >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean > > > > > >As previously mentioned [1], [2], at the request of the I18N WG [3], > >the XML Core WG has been considering whether the explicit licensing > >of the use of xml:lang="" to "un-declare" a language should be made > >an erratum to XML 1.0 or merely included as part of XML 1.1. > > > >The XML Core WG has debated this issue thoroughly, seeked the > >input of various groups (including chairs, XML Plenary, and > >various public email groups), and canvased current implementations. > > > >It has been decided that the optimal situation is to issue this as an > >erratum to the XML 1.0 spec. Hence, you can see this reflected in the > >current Errata document at http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E41 . > > > >The XML Core WG thanks all who provided feedback in this decision. > > > >Paul Grosso, co-chair, XML Core WG > > > >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-plenary/2002Aug/0000 > >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-plenary/2002Aug/0026 > >[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-core-wg/2002AprJun/0161 > >
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 05:43:27 UTC