- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Aug 2003 06:17:54 -0700
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>, ext pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 00:06, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > > Maybe. > > in 1:1 correspondence with the lexical space. > Right. Hmm... that one gave me pause... but OK. > The exact nature of XML values is not specified. > > No. This bothers me. Alot. Really? The exact nature of integers is not specified; just various relationships like addition and multiplication of them. If it bothers you, then feel free to suggest an alternative. We could pick any set that's in 1-1 correspondence with the lexical space; e.g. pairs (humpty-dumpty, lexical-value) or perhaps less churlishly... (http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral, lexical-value) > It is our responsibility to define what the values of XML Literals > are. Only inasmuch as required to get the technology deployed. > It's *our* datatype, and no'one else should have to define it, or > guess. They don't have to guess; what Pat wrote tells them everything they need to know. > I've never understood the opposition to having a value space > consisting of infosets. I wish someone would tell me what significant > problem or issue I'm missing... How to construct an infoset and how to compare them isn't specified. -- Dan
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 09:18:22 UTC