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

Re: [widgets] Further argument for making config.xml mandatory

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:43:52 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903190843m8ff96bdt3b8b3c3e91b5ffb2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
Cc: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com, Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To be clear, the proposal is:
>> <widget xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets">
>>   <name xml:lang="fr">Mon widget</name>
>>   <name xml:lang="en">My Widget</name>
>>   <name>Widget</name>
>> </widget>
>
> heh... be careful that looks very similar to this "Best Practice":
>
> "Avoid document formats that store multiple localized versions of
> content within the same document."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#DevMLDoc
>
> :)

That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n
guidelines say it's bad practice,'. However, Addison Phillips, the
Chair of i18n core, said the following in the formal feedback
representing the i18n WG's LC comments for the spec [1]:

"Section 7.4 (Widget) The various language bearing elements such as
<name>, <description>, etc. are of the zero-or-one type. However, it
is typically better to allow any number of these elements to occur,
provided that none share the same xml:lang. This allows for
localization (which is part of the point in allowing xml:lang on the
element)."

So we have been blessed by them to do this... umm.... this somewhat
questionable, yet problem solving thing :)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0259.html


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:44:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT