- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:31:54 +0100
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 10/05/12 22:00, Pat Hayes wrote: > Um. Can I raise the issue I was trying (but failing) to clarify > through IRC yesterday? It concerns canonical lexical forms. I may be > simply not understanding the issue, in which case please someone > tell me so. > > Seems to me that if we define a canonical lexical form but also make > it optional, then this is worse than just not mentioning it at all. Pat, XSD defines canonical forms for XSD datatypes - having optional canonical forms is an existing practice in a nearby area. XSD 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime-canonical-representation XSD 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/#vp-dateTimeCanRep Andy
Received on Friday, 11 May 2012 07:32:29 UTC