- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:35:03 +0300
- To: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "i18n" <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org> Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "i18n" <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>; "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org> Sent: 17 July, 2003 13:58 Subject: Re: resend: Fwd: I18N Comments] > > On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 16:48, Graham Klyne wrote: > > [...] > > > > > My impression is that no showstopper has been identified, but the current > > approach will be quite painful for some. > > Have we identified whom? I think those who want to qualify mixed content with language tags and maintain a distinction from plain literals. I.e. those who want to say xml"..."@en or "..."@en^^rdfs:XMLLiteral neither of which are supported by RDF directly. Of course, that's simply qualified that blank node more precisely, without actually clarifying its denotation ;-) Patrick
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 07:35:17 UTC