- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:23:07 +0300
- To: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org] > Sent: 10 September, 2003 10:36 > To: Dan Brickley; Brian McBride > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals > > > > 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. IF it turns out that the current design is not accepted or IF the WG decides that it is prudent to adopt a different design in the interest of wider acceptance and expedient completion of our task, THEN I also propose the design alternative referenced by Graham below. Patrick > 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. > > #g > -- > > [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 GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 04:23:18 UTC