- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:50:25 +0300
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <gk@ninebynine.org>, <danbri@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 11 September, 2003 11:43 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Cc: gk@ninebynine.org; danbri@w3.org; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals > > > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > > And importantly, for I18N: > > > > <rdf:Desription rdf:about="#something" > xmlns:ex="http://example.com/" > > <ex:foo parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en"><b>foo</b></ex:foo> > > </rdf:Description> > > > > gives us > > > > <#something> <ex:foo> "<b>foo</b>"@en . > > > > BUT > > > > <rdf:Desription rdf:about="#something" > xmlns:ex="http://example.com/" > > <ex:foo parseType="Literal" xml:lang="en" > rdf:datatype="http://example.com/x"><b>foo</b></ex:foo> > > </rdf:Description> > > Is that currently legal syntax? Not currently. The proposals that Graham and I both submitted included the ability to combine rdf:datatype and rdf:parseType="Literal" to define XML encoded lexical forms for arbitrary complex types (e.g. xhtml:table). Patrick
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 04:50:32 UTC