- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:38:49 +0100
- 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.
Jeremy
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0165.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0092.html
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0091.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0093.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0088.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0089.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0087.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0086.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0064.html
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0434.html
Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 07:39:22 UTC