W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2003

RE: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:43:44 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90DB5@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 May, 2003 15:29
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com;
> jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: typed literals and language tags - suggested sub-agenda
> So far I am the only one to have spoken against 4 - if there 
> are no others
> who join me in that position in the telecon I am currently 
> expecting option
> 4 to win.

That would be very welcome.

> Option 4 makes XMLLiteral ignore language.

Right. So long as Dave's arguments that this is not in direct
conflict with M&S, such that the charter doesn't get in the way,
I think this will make the widest group of RDF users the happiest.

To refresh my memory (and so I don't have to go searching through
the archives) can you recap in a sentence or two what your concerns
were with Option 4?


Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:22 UTC