W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:17:21 -0000
To: <public-xhtml2@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: <fd@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016101c98562$7de21eb0$79a65c10$@org>

Hi,

This topic was discussed last week in the i18n WG call, and the group
formally supports adding the lang attribute to the XHTML family as a stopgap
means to enable language information to be recognised by html processors.
http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-core-minutes.html#item07

We would also like to enlist the support of the BPWG and the XHTML WGs to
propose to the HTML5 WG that their spec recognise xml:lang as equivalent to
lang, so that eventually XHTML can be written with a single language
attribute, ie. xml:lang, and still be recognised by html processors. Would
your groups support this?

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl]
> Sent: 28 January 2009 14:42
> To: Richard Ishida; 'Dominique Hazael-Massieux'; public-xhtml2@w3.org;
> public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Cc: fd@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> This reply from you rings a bell that you had said that you would suggest
> this to the HTML5 group. I think you speak a lot of sense, and that it
> would be good if we could move to a future where browsers recognised
> both
> lang and xml:lang.
> 
> Still, in the short term, it looks like we do need lang to be available
> for dual-purposing existing documents.
> 
> Steven
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:33:54 +0100, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > I'm copying in the i18n WG to this thread.
> >
> > I18n folks:  See the following thread, where Dom proposes the
> > introduction
> > of the lang attribute to XHTML in addition to xml:lang, so that when
> > people
> > serve XHTML as text/html the language information is available.
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009Jan/0049.html
> >
> > I was sure I had written something along these lines and sent to the
> > html5
> > WG, but I don't seem to be able to find it.  We certainly had some
> > discussion of it in the i18n WG a while back.
> >
> > I hear many complaints from authors using XHTML about having to declare
> > language twice, once with lang and once with xml:lang for XHTML 1.0, and
> > I
> > must say that I also find it burdensome myself.  I encourage people to
> > persevere because agents that process text/html don't recognise
xml:lang,
> > but agents that process the file as XML (eg. using XSLT) only recognise
> > xml:lang.
> >
> > I would very much like to reach a situation where an author could just
> > use
> > one or other of these attributes, and achieve the desired result.
> >
> > I was originally thinking, however, that we should ask the HTML5 people
> > to
> > write their spec such that future processors of text/html would
recognise
> > both lang and xml:lang as equivalent.  That way it wouldn't be necessary
> > for
> > the XHTML specs to change, and authors of XHTML would be able to use
> just
> > xml:lang, rather than both attributes.
> >
> > The idea that it might be possible to introduce lang to XHTML 1.1 etc
was
> > interesting, but I think that the problem would be that, if people don't
> > continue to use both attributes, xml processors would have to also be
> > changed to recognise that lang is equivalent to xml:lang (eg. so that
the
> > XPath lang() function would still work in XSLT or XQuery).  In fact, I
> > think
> > that that would ultimately mean changing the XML spec, and the
> > Canonicalisation spec, XML Schema, etc.  I think that many people would
> > only
> > use lang when writing XHTML, and then we'd have the opposite problem
> from
> > the one we're trying to fix, ie. that XHTML doesn't work as it should as
> > XML.
> >
> > I can't say what level of acceptance the idea would have with the HTML5
> > folks, but it seems to me that moving text/html processors to accept
> > xml:lang as equivalent to lang would be more effective, and perhaps
> > easier.
> >
> > Ok, so what am I missing?
> >
> > RI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ============
> > Richard Ishida
> > Internationalization Lead
> > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/International/
> > http://rishida.net/
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org]
> >> Sent: 21 January 2009 08:24
> >> To: public-xhtml2@w3.org
> >> Cc: ishida@w3.org; fd@w3.org
> >> Subject: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> The to-be-published version of the XHTML Media Types note allows for
> any
> >> XHTML Family document to be served as text/html:
> >>   http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml-media-types-20090116/
> >>
> >> But as was discussed in this very list [1], this is problematic since
> >> the lang attribute (the only one interpreted as a language annotation
on
> >> documents served as text/html) is not allowed by the XHTML DTDs (but
> the
> >> XHTML 1.0 one).
> >>
> >> Could the lang attribute be added to the relevant DTDs so as to enable
> >> properly lang-marked up XHTML documents to be served as text/html?
> >>
> >> FWIW, I'm fairly confident I could get formal support from the Mobile
> >> Web Best Practices Working Group on this proposal if this is of any
> >> help, since this impacts negatively on the deployment of their mobileOK
> >> specification.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Dom
> >>
> >> 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0086.html
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 18:17:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 February 2009 18:17:19 GMT