I18N response draft2 - and possible concessions

Completing my action ... it is attached.

I added discussion of the merging plain and XMLLiterals proposal, and also 
mentioned the two proposals to do with reflecting xml:lang in triples, 
although I avoided discussing them in detail, since a discussion of tidiness 
seemed out of place. This may be appropriate to discuss at the telecon.

Comments on other aspects by e-mail or at the telecon.

Note there are a few to dos which I call out here:

@@ add link to dissent, when it comes @@

@@ to be completed @@ We have received further comment concerning this aspect 
of our design as reflected in the 5th September 2003 Working Drafts: 
@@ from webont
@@ any other

(I anticipate at least a comment from webont, but it has not happened yet).

The Working Group did accept an @@what concession do we make - add 'at risk' 
part, add exit criteria@@ 

=====

On the last point here are some possible concessions:

1) Add to syntax, on the rdf:parseType="Literal" cosntruction

A parser MAY warn if there is an inscope non-empty xml:lang.

2) Add to syntax, in the bit about generating RDF/XML

When generating rdf:parseType="Literal", you SHOULD generate xml:lang="".

3) Add to our PR entrance criteria the following

At least one RDF API that provides uniform access to language identifiers in 
plain and XMLLiterals.

Jeremy