W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: [Comment on ITS WD] xml:lang = language info, please

From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:04:27 -0700
Message-ID: <4512C61B.90401@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
CC: "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, www-i18n-comments@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, public-i18n-its@w3.org

Really I think you ought to use the latest reference. RFC 4646 is 
published and can be referenced. Pointing to the older, obsolete, RFC 
may confuse people needlessly. Your current text says:

--
Applying the Language Information data category to xml:lang attributes 
using global rules is not necessary, since xml:lang is already defined 
in terms of RFC3066 or its successor.
--

It might be better to append a note to that sentence:

--
Applying the Language Information data category to xml:lang attributes 
using global rules is not necessary, since xml:lang is already defined 
in terms of RFC3066 or its successor. (RFC4646 is the successor to RFC 
3066.)
--

Best Regards,

Addison

Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> The reference has been changed to 'RFC3066 or its successor' with a link to a reference to the "Language Identification" section of
> the XML specification.
> See http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#langinfo-definition
> 
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
> 
> Cheers,
> -yves
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:09 PM
> To: 'Felix Sasaki'
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] xml:lang = language info, please
> 
> 
> Personal comment:
> 
> "Applying the language information data category to xml:lang attributes using global rules is not necessary, since xml:lang is
> already defined in terms of [RFC 4646]."
> 
> Strictly speaking xml is defined in terms of RFC 3066 or its successor.  It may be better to say "in terms of [BCP 47]" at this
> location.  If not, you should add, or it's successor.  (Bear in mind that RFC 4646bis is just around the corner, relatively
> speaking.)
> 
> RI
> 
> 

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 17:04:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:51 GMT