- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:49:06 +0000
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, "ext Graham Klyne" <gk@ninebynine.org>, Patrick St ickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Agreed. Though if we went down that path, I can't imagine why we wouldn't include such treatment, since all the pieces would automatically be in place and the benefits are significant. Cheers, Patrick _____________Original message ____________ Subject: RE: I18N Issue alternative: collapsing plain and xml literals Sender: ext Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 09:36:49 +0000 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 Friday, 12 September 2003 02:49:19 UTC