- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:37:11 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:42 03/07/07 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote: >Also for the record... I have no problem with either of the implied goals >here in isolation (i.e. no distinction between XML without markup and >plain text, and xml:lang applies to XML literals.) > >Where I do have a problem is to say (as seems to be needed to square all >the goals being promoted here) there is no distinction between XML without >markup and plain text, and AT THE SAME TIME to say that there is a >fundamental difference in type between an XML literal with markup and >plain text. Hello Graham, I agree with you. I am seeing the treatment of XML literals as types as a simple convenience (just use a type to provide a label), rather than anything else. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:56:08 UTC