Print

Print


> >
> > No.  The date-stamped schemas referenced above will not be replaced or
> > removed.  They will continue to be available.  The new schemas will be
> > installed in a new location and the namespace URIs changed to resolve to
> > them.
>
> Yes, I did mean "replace", not "remove"...
>
> > > 1) | <dcterms:issued xml:lang="en-US">1999-07-02</dcterms:issued>
> > >    | <dcterms:modified xml:lang="en-US">2002-10-04</dcterms:modified>
> > >
> > >    xml:lang seems unnecessary for dcterms:issued and
> > >    dcterms:modified, though perhaps it does no harm?
> >
> > In the past we have used xml:lang inconsistantly.  We use it for some
> > literals (i.e. label, comment, etc.) but not for others.  In the new
> > schemas, all literals will include the xml:lang attribute, including the
> > date fields.
>
> In the past, I believe we used xml:lang for the literals
> that represent a natural language like English or Spanish.
> I'm curious, is it generally considered good practice to use
> xml:lang for literals in a broader sense?
>

This is (if it ever was) no-longer a matter of practice.
The relevance of xml:lang for untyped literals is of normative
level and must be observed by RDF parsers, which are compliant with
the new drafts.

rs