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

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

From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:52:45 +0000
Message-ID: <74a894af0903190852h1bfcee91h7417b72d5d3b8b53@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Cc: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com, Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com, public-webapps@w3.org
> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n
> guidelines say it's bad practice,'.

Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code
sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts.... my bad.


> 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

That's interesting, because xml:lang seems pretty redundant otherwise!



-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:53:26 GMT

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