- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:10:16 +0100
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:50 11/09/03 +0300, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > <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). I would add that while this seems a natural development from treating rdf:parseType="Literal" as a purely syntactic option for RDF/XML, it is in no way central to that design, whose main advantage (IMO) is it's relative simplicity. #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 14:28:47 UTC