- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:32:00 +0200
- 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 suitable) 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 data:text/plain;charset="utf-8",12 isValidLexicalFormOf http://www.w3.org/2004/SchemaSimpleTypes/Integer/value/12 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