RE: in progress - discussion of I18N issue for request

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 18 August, 2003 19:06
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: in progress - discussion of I18N issue for request
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a heads up - of my efforts on the action item to draft a 
> discussion of the xmlliteral issue for inclusion in the 
> request for advance.
> 
> Here is what I've got, I will continue on it tomorrow morning.

Looks like it is shaping up. One suggestion further below...

> A particular question I would like help with is what are the concise 
> arguments for having reject option 3 from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0016.html
> which is the closest design to what we've got, that would 
> probably satisfy 
> I18N.
> 
> I think it's the "puke factor" - but it would be nice to 
> wordsmith that ...

I offer the following

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0111.html

> Members of the WG have argued that:
> - the treatment of xml:lang is
> performed by XML exclusive canonicalization (which had
> been reviewed and accepted by the I18N WG).
> - an RDF specific solution to perceived deficiences
> in exclusive canonicalization would not be interoperable
> with other ad hoc solutions.

I think it would be useful to include some wording along
the line that having individual formalisms which might
encapsulate XML fragments each provide their own
proprietary solution to the fragment context problem
is "bad policy" for the W3C and contrary to the clear
goal of having synergetic/compatible yet cleanly layered
specifications.

Patrick

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2003 05:05:07 UTC