Re: xml:lang was RE: MicroXML design goals

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:38 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> David Lee scripsit:
>
> > Curious, which of the Design Goals supports/suggests the desire to
> > allow xml:lang in MicroXML documents ?
>
> That would be #5, "MicroXML shall support the needs of documents, in
> particular mixed content."  The language of a human-readable document is
> an essential part of its interpretability, and @xml:lang is the standard
> way of representing this property.  The same applies to human-readable
> strings embedded in data.
>

OK I did pause at #5 a bit in my pondering because as you say, and as I
mentioned to Andrew, it's really in human readable docs that something like
xml:lang is so important. But I did not get to a formula as clear as the
above.

Maybe this covers the matter sufficiently enough that the change I
proposed, and James clarified for goal #6, would not be needed.



> In addition, the xml: prefix does not create any interoperability
> problems, since it MAY be used without a declaration and MUST NOT be
> bound to some other namespace.  Even if we decide to exclude prefixes in
> attribute names, we should allow "xml:" by a special rule of the grammar.
>

Right. I think for a minimal first iteration allowing only "xml:"
attributes is just what we should do, but that's a separate thread...


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
http://wearekin.org
http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
http://twitter.com/uogbuji