Re: XML observation

Martin Duerst wrote:


> BTW, I would like to insist again that because of examples such as
> multilingual strings, bidirectionality, ruby, and so on, and the
> fact that for the usage scenarios we see, XML Literals are just
> extensions of plain literals, the need for keeping language on
> XML literals is really not just because of RDF/XML (which is of
> course also one of many reasons).
> 



All these usage scenarios are embedded XHTML rather than embedded XML. I 
point this out to stress that span (or div) *is* a viable work around. The 
argument that some XML may not have a neutral element is spurious, in that 
in such cases we are talking about embedded data, when Patrick's arguments 
have additional weight.

Jeremy

Received on Friday, 4 July 2003 11:08:59 UTC