- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:58:54 +0200
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> My preferences, in order, most prefered to least preferred: > > Option 4, 1, 3, 2 > > > Option 4 in my mind is simply incorrect - there are XMLLiterals > for which the > > language is semantic meaningful. > > Well, why is it not unreasonable to require that, where an xml:lang tag > is relevant to an XML literal, that it be specified *within* the XML > literal. Why do we have to do it for *every* XML literal automatically? > That feels to me like a step backward from what M&S provides (sort of). e.g. <rdf:RDF xml:lang="en"> ... <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal">I did <em>not</em> like that</eg:prop> ... </rdf:RDF> ==> <eg:prop rdf:parseType="Literal"><span xml:lang="en">I did <em>not</em> like that</span></eg:prop> Jeremy
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 05:59:22 UTC