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

RE: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:07:56 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B026302D9@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <ishida@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 08 September, 2003 19:22
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org; duerst@w3.org; ishida@w3.org;
> w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals
> > This is not what I would expect, given how XML works.
> The idea is that literals in a graph are XML (fragments).  
> "<" is not a 
> legal xml fragment, but "&lt;" is.

At first I thought this was what you were proposing, but
then dismissed it to my misunderstanding you, given the
enormous impact such a change would have on legacy content.

This will break so much legacy content out there, as
well as force applications needing basic string types to
choose an RDF-external datatype and use typed literals,
that I am really surprised it is suggested seriously.

At the very least, if this approach were adopted, I would
expect completely new namespaces for the RDF vocabulary,
to protect legacy applications from this upheaval in the
definition of plain literals.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 02:08:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:25 UTC