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

Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:36:26 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 16:49 09/09/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>I think it is important to document that WG members have, offline and
>on, given thoughtful consideration to alternative designs and the
>(not always immediately obvious) ramifications for the rest of our
>design and those (such as OWL's) that depend on it.

In the spirit of documenting what WG members have considered offline...

I am NOT by this message making a proposal to change the design.  However, 
IF it turns out that the current design is not accepted because of I18N 
objections, or we feel this is a likely outcome, THEN I do intend to 
propose the design alternative mentioned.

I would like to record that I have thought about restricting the function 
of parseType=Literal to be purely syntactic, along the lines indicated in 
[1] (also described earlier, with some embellishment, by Patrick [2]), and 
have not become aware of any fundamental problem with it.  I believe it 
results in a cleaner design that we currently have.

I did not promote this because at the time it occurred to me we were trying 
to understand the underlying I18N requirements in relation to the existing 
design, and I felt introduction of an alternative design would muddy the 
debate, and would likely lead to delayed completion of the WGs work.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0113.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0165.html

Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:07:24 UTC

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