W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > December 2010

FW: i18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:09:50 -0500
To: WOFF Working Group FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D053BEB7E2F@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Forwarding a comment on the Last Call Working Draft to the WG list.


-----Original Message-----
From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 1:34 PM
To: www-font@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: RE: i18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]

Just to add a little more detail behind why I ask the question...

xml:lang is part of XML itself, and the way the XML spec recommends to indicate language in XML.  (Note that it does not involve name space definitions.) 

One reason this is important is that XSLT has built-in functions that look for xml:lang to identify language information, and other XML processing tools also expect to find xml:lang for locating language info in XML.  

In addition, the inheritance behaviour of xml:lang is clearly defined in the XML spec in a way that is not the case for an arbitrary attribute.

See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag


Hope that helps,
RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/

http://rishida.net/





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: 09 December 2010 12:18
> To: www-font@w3.org
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: i18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]
> 
> I18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]
> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/2

> 
> Raised by: Richard Ishida
> On product: WOFF
> 
> 6. Extended Metadata Block
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF/#Metadata

> 
> Substantive(?)
> WG approved?  No
> 
> "The text elements MAY be given a lang attribute."
> 
> Why are you inventing your own lang attribute, rather than using xml:lang for
> this?
> 
> 
> 
> 



Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:10:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 9 December 2010 20:10:22 GMT