- From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:28:00 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:50 30/09/03 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > [[ > > Why we didn't accept I18N's objection to the design of XML literals > > > > 1. Review status of the WG, noting that we're long overdue, losing > > participation, and that the I18N desideratum for "seamless plain and XML > > literals" was only articulated well after the end of LC1. This might use > > material from my earlier message [1]. > >Hmm, while finding much of your msg compelling .. I note that this >requirement "seamless plain and XML literals" is not part of the objection - >so we don't particularly need to justify not addressing this. OK, that was poor phrasing on my part. Some actual wording from the I18N formal objection [1] is: + provide solutions as close as possible for plain literals and XML Literals + Do not require programmers/users to trade off use of language information against other goals, such as markup integrity. + It is very important to have a consistent way to identify the language of a piece of text in any technology so that generic operations needing this information can use it easily. + to write queries that search for both plain literals and XML literals + possible to keep markup as is without loosing language information My phrasing may have been poor; I was trying to refer to goals such as these, which I was not aware were articulated to the group until after LC. #g -- [1] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434 ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 11:23:49 UTC