W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > October 2004

Re: URIS for Literals (was: Re: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource"))

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <1882051691.20041029223200@w3.org>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>

On Friday, October 29, 2004, 6:41:02 PM, noah wrote:

nuic> Chris Lilley writes:

>> With the proviso that I would prefer
nuic> data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",some%20percent%20escaped%20literal%20value

nuic> I think the above is a plausable way of carrying a literal which is a
nuic> sequence of unicode chars.

Yes - that is exactly what I thought it was good for, string literals.

nuic>  I wonder whether there is any need to have a
nuic> URI that represents the member of the type xsd:integer that has the
nuic> numeric value 10, for example?

It might be useful (and I agree that the above form would not be

nuic>   http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/value/12

nuic>   http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/lexical/012

nuic>   http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/12

I agree those forms are much preferable, although I am sure someone will
suggest that #12 is far preferable.

nuic> I don't think you'd want to make quite that same assertion about:

nuic>         data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",12

nope. Although you might make an assertion


nuic> I'm not pushing this 'URI for typed literals' idea, except to suggest that
nuic> it's worth exploring.

I think it is. Further, other types can be created that were not in
W3C XML Schema, a benefit of using URIs for them.

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 20:32:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:06 UTC