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

RE: Proposal for xml:lang

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 06:37:12 -0600
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007401c6af1d$e3f4ee30$0300a8c0@Breizh>

I had an action item to write a paragraph for the langRule section.
(http://www.w3.org/2006/07/21-i18nits-minutes.html#action02)

---A) The current text of 6.7.1 reads: "The element langRule is used to express that a given piece of content (selected by the
attribute langPointer) is used to express language information as defined by [RFC 3066bis]."

I would propose to add a note:

"The recommended way to specify language identification is to use xml:lang. The langRule element is intended only as a fall-back
mechanism for documents where language is identified with another construct."


---B) I would also agree with Felix proposed text for a non-normative subsection.
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0121.html)


--- C) I have also one extra question related to xml:lang and langRule.

I see (relatively often) XML documents where the language is declared with an element, something like this:

<myRes language="en">
 <messages>
  <msg id="1">
   <langcode>en</langcode>
   <text>Cannot find file.</text>
  </msg>
  <msg id="2">
   <langcode>fr</langcode>
   <text>Fichier no trouvé.</text>
  </msg>
 </messages>
</myRes>

Such construct, while using the same values as xml:lang, cannot work the same as xml:lang since it cannot offer the same inheritance
mechanism.

Is this still a candidate for langRule?

<its:langRule selector="//text" langPointer="../langcode"/>

My current understanding is that it is allowed and correct. langRule only refers to the language values, not how that value is
applied in the document. In other words, langRule is not a 'true mapping' of xml:lang, but just an alternative way of specifying
language for a selected text.

Cheers,
-yves
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 12:37:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC