RE: Languageless Typed Literals

> 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