W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-ws@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Issue 501 closed

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:34:41 +0200 (MEST)
To: "A. Vine" <andrea.vine@Sun.COM>
cc: public-i18n-ws@w3.org, xmlp-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0410122026030.3436@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, A. Vine wrote:

>> Point 4: xml:lang is not appropriate for use on the rep:Data element as
>> base64 is not human-readable text. A SOAP message can carry multiple
>> instances of the resource representation header and many such headers
>> may carry representations of the same resource. Thus a given SOAP
>> message could carry multiple representations of a given resource, each
>> one in a different human readable language. The resource representation
>> header has an extensibility mechanism that allows additional attributes
>> to be specified. Such an attribute could be defined to indicate the
>> human readable language of a text based resource. We note that there is
>> an example of how to use this extensibility mechanism in Section
>> 4.4.3[5] of the CR version of the Resource Representation SOAP Header
>> Block specification[4]
>
> We believe that at a minimum precedence rules need to be specified for 
> determining the language of included data.  For example, do the MIME headers 
> take precedence over the HTTP headers?

Andrea,
Can you clarify what you mean by "precedence rule" there? Is is between 
the MIME multipart information that describe a part, and the HTTP headers 
that may be defined in a Resource Representation Header block? Is it 
between a Content-Type defined using 
xmlmime:contentType='text/html;charset=UTF-8' and the HTML resource that 
declares a meta http-equiv with another encoding? Is it between all those 
3 levels?
Thanks,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 18:35:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:53 GMT