- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:13:48 +0000
- To: mike@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16520
Summary: Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang
Product: HTML WG
Version: unspecified
Platform: PC
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#specifying-the-language-
for-a-literal
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny)
AssignedTo: msporny@digitalbazaar.com
ReportedBy: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
public-html@w3.org, msporny@digitalbazaar.com
The HTML+RDFa spec says:
]] If an author is editing an HTML fragment and is unsure of the final
encapsulating MIME type for their markup, it is suggested that the author
specify both lang and xml:lang [[
NIT: "If an author is [snip] for their markup".
Correct: "If an author is [snip] for his/her markup".
ISSUE: The advice proliferate the belief that XML mime types *need* xml:lang.
But it is only if they don't understand XHTML that they *need* xml:lang. They
might very well not understand XHTML. But is that related to the MIME type?
The only use case I have heard for xml:lang is XML authoring tools - thus, not
exactly "the final encapsulating MIME type". XML parsers of the Web browser
kind (IE/Webkit/Opera/Gecko) do understand the @lang attribute. (Though there
might be legacy versions which don't.) And e.g. the XHTML+RDFa DOCTYPE supports
both @lang and @xml:lang.
Are there any *real* reasons for using both attributes - unrelated to authors'
fears and feelings? Such as legacy RDFa parsers? Or specific XML authoring
tools? Or specific consumers?
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 08:31:55 UTC