- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:06:31 +0100
- 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 4:52 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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! Alright, lets see a show of hands for this approach! Who supports us just having a single config.xml with a bunch of repeated elements, but with different xml:langs? Advantages here are: * we only need to make very small modifications to the parsing model. * no more searching for config docs in locale folders * no multiple parsing of config files Disadvantages: * large, and, if not careful, hard to maintain config files Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 16:07:07 UTC