W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2003

Re: XML observation

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:38:49 +0100
Message-ID: <3F056749.4050004@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, phayes@ihmc.us, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

(Just rdf core)

> It would be helpful if you could spell out the arguments for why a
> parseType="Literal" fragment should not inherit xml:lang from its
> context?

Let's try brain storming, I am sure Patrick could copy paste one or two out 
of his earlier post. (but not too much context)

I'll try ...
- XML makes no provision for providing xml:lang except on elements. In 
particular it is not possible to provide xml:lang on mixed content. For 
legacy reasons rdf:parseType="Literal" takes mixed content. For RDF to 
provide such a mechanism in this case, would require some special apparatus 
not required elsewhere in RDF:
     We have had substantial comment against specific instances of
     such apparatus:
   + a speical sort of literal
     Massimo [1], TBL [2],
   + a special sort of datatype
     PFPS [3], (seven comments!)
   + wrapping
     Reagle [4]
     (None of these have commented about the language requirement
      just a variety of proposed solutions)
   Each of these comments is sufficient to justify trying a different 
solution, in total, we note that the only actual use case we have, that
of embedded xhtml is adequately met by use of span. This is our current 
solution, and the argument against, that it makes it more difficult for
someone hand-editing RDF/XML is insufficiently compelling.





Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 07:39:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:23 UTC