W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2003

RE: Is this really it? (was: I18N response draft3)

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:28:00 +0100
Message-Id: <>
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.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2003/09/ri434

Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 11:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:25 UTC