- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:04:47 +0200
- To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Brian_McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
> Well, it doesn't convey whether an attribute was single-quoted or > double-quoted, but then even the XML parser may not convey that > information. It does eliminate, in certain well-defined ways, > the difference between attributes and elements, because that is > seen as a syntactic distinction. But I'm not aware of any > actual information in attributes or elements that is just > thrown out of the window. > Ordering, namespace prefixes, where the colon appears in many qnames, ... there's lots and lots. > I'm quite sure many readers and users will understand the treatment > of XML literals as typed literals as just a technical mechanism, > and therefore actually be surprised. That will be the case in particular > because the users that use XML literals will be familiar with XML. > After all, it's XML, not something else. That's certainly true. > >I believe we have already fulfilled our charter obligations to > clarify the > >I18N support already in M&S; > > Just for the record, I think that both the current removal of xml:lang > from xml literals and the creation of a distinction between xml > literals with plain text only and plain literals are in conflict with > the M&S spec, and I think you have agreed with at least one of these > points. > As our group has realised, you can prove anything from M&S, ex contradictio quodlibet. It is a question of degrees of conflict and the amount of weight one gives to different sections. M&S is not an unambiguous document. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 12:11:28 UTC