W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > December 2008

RE: about XML 1.1 (was: Re: new issue? dfxp and language selection)

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:26:10 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com>
CC: John Birch <john.birch@screen.subtitling.com>, "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, Public TTWG List <public-tt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90EEC9D914694641A8358AA190DACB3D2FCE9A1BCC@EA-EXMSG-C334.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

One correction, DFXP is most certainly not restricted to "just ascii" it is based on XML Character data which is : " an atomic unit of text as specified by ISO/IEC 10646:2000 [ISO/IEC 10646]. Legal characters are tab, carriage return, line feed, and the legal characters of Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646."

I would however be willing to adopt XML 1.0 (5th edition) as the XML reference. If others have no objection.

Sean Hayes
Media Accessibility Strategist
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office:  +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385


-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 December 2008 21:01
To: Daniel Weck
Cc: John Birch; Sean Hayes; Glenn A. Adams; Public TTWG List
Subject: about XML 1.1 (was: Re: new issue? dfxp and language selection)

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Weck <daniel.weck@gmail.com> wrote:
> The "xml:lang" attribute from XML 1.0 and 1.1 can do both scenarios you
> mention. "xml:lang" is not meant to be limited to the document instance as
> far as I know. The "lang" versus "xml:lang" mess has been fixed in XHTML 1.1
> IIRC, isn't that a good trend to follow ?

Except .... a friend tells me gives the following feedback:

"XML 1.1 is a failed experiment that it isn't supported in Gecko, and
even the W3C is giving up on XML 1.1. The element and attribute name
internationalization aspect of XML 1.1 is moot when it comes to DFXP,
since DFXP elements and attributes are ASCII anyway. The expansion of
the meaning of whitespace in XML 1.1 is a reason to stick to 1.0. The
reference to XML 1.1 Name production for extension-role could be
avoided by specifying that the extension token is any string without
whitespace in it. (I'd prefer to see DFXP reference XML 1.0 instead.)"

With XML 1.1 not being supported by Web Browsers, we severely restrict
the parsability of DFXP and therefore the potential for uptake. Do we
have amongst our trial implementations anyone who is implementing
support in a Web Browser? We've got to seriously consider DFXP as a
solution to Web Video accessibility.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 23:26:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 2 November 2009 22:41:39 GMT