>>>Chris Croome said:
> On Mon 04-Mar-2002 at 11:27:17 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >
> > We are making a change - xml:lang is required to be supported and is
> > significant.
It is possible that I wrote that sentence, sounds like me. But given
without context I can't check.
> Does this:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Mar/0145.html
Which is my announcement of a new draft of the RDF/XML Syntax
revision work:
RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised)
W3C Working Draft 25 March 2002
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20020325/
>
> Mean that this:
>
> http://dublincore.org/documents/2001/11/30/dcq-rdf-xml/#sec4
>
> Will need revising?
Possibly. The syntax for using xml:lang *has not changed*. But the
model now requires the recording of the (single) language of the
strings as given in the XML. We've consulted the W3C's
Internationalization Working Group for advice on this.
Don't confuse with language of the resource (dc language element) or
using multiple languages in a single literal; the latter requires a
richer markup, such as XHTML.
The 4.2.1 example and graph does look odd, but does have the
advantage of having the language properties in the graph.
More exciting than this :) is probably the other new working draft:
RDF Primer edited by Frank Manola and Eric Miller
W3C Working Draft 19 March 2002
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20020319/
Dave
|