W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [CDR Framework] i18n comment: Language identification for child documents

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:04:21 +1100
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601301704o6cab0604rf74875b604492c93@mail.gmail.com>
To: "fsasaki@w3.org" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: public-cdf@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Hello Felix, thanks for your comments.

On 1/25/06, fsasaki@w3.org <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/
> Comment 5
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-cdf/
> Editorial/substantive: S
> Location in reviewed document:
>  general
> Comment:
> If you ask an SVG document about language information, and the document is inside an HTML document, the xml:lang attribute in the HTML applies to the SVG as well. It seems that the compounding specs should say: \"You should get the same results for both inclusion and referencel.\"

The WG has just discussed this, and we feel that for the CDR case -
which is all the current set of Last Call drafts cover - the value of
the xml:lang attribute in any containing HTML should *not* apply to
children, because it isn't authoritative (as described in the TAG's
finding on authoritative metadata[1]) as a result of requiring
multiple messages to assemble the compound document.  Consider, for
example, that the child document might be returned with an HTTP
message which includes a Content-Language header (sec 14.12 of RFC
2616) with a (authoritative) value inconsistent with that specified by
the xml:lang attribute.  More generally too, content may be retrieved
from multiple domains over which the author of the containing document
has no control, and therefore propagating the value of attributes like
xml:lang doesn't seem appropriate.

 [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html


Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:04:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC