W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > January 2009

Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:44:45 +0000
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org, ishida@w3.org, fd@w3.org
Message-Id: <20090121163933.M67423@hicom.net>

aloha!

FYI, it should also be remembered that -- despite entreaties, buglogs,
and direct user request -- NO assistive technology recognizes 
xml:lang="xx", but key off of @lang, and there is VERY little 
chance of changing that in the commercial assistive technology 
market until open source assistive technologies introduce the capacity
to switch natural language in response to xml:lang="xx"

the lack of @lang in XHTML 1.1 is the primary reason why Open 
Accessibility specifications (http://a11y.org/specs) are normatively 
distributed as XHTML 1.0 Strict, rather than XHTML 1.1, as i would 
personally prefer to utilize XHTML 1.1 plus, but need to accomodate 
those who need/want/desire natural language switching (a feature of 
my screen reader which i use and depend upon...

gregory.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them 
with others.         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
----------------------------------------------------------------
             Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
  Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-xhtml2@w3.org, ishida@w3.org, fd@w3.org
Sent: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:36:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?

> Actually, I don't think we can.  Putting @lang into XHTML 1.1 or 
> XHTML Basic 1.1 or XHTML Print 1.0 would change the conformance 
> requirements on currently conforming user agents.
> 
> What we could do is re-introduce @lang in XHTML 1.2 and XHTML 
> 2.0 if that is something people really want.  I personally think 
> it is a great idea.
> 
> Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > The to-be-published version of the XHTML Media Types note allows for any
> > XHTML Family document to be served as text/html:
> >   http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml-media-types-20090116/
> > 
> > But as was discussed in this very list [1], this is problematic since
> > the lang attribute (the only one interpreted as a language annotation on
> > documents served as text/html) is not allowed by the XHTML DTDs (but the
> > XHTML 1.0 one).
> > 
> > Could the lang attribute be added to the relevant DTDs so as to enable
> > properly lang-marked up XHTML documents to be served as text/html?
> > 
> > FWIW, I'm fairly confident I could get formal support from the Mobile
> > Web Best Practices Working Group on this proposal if this is of any
> > help, since this impacts negatively on the deployment of their mobileOK
> > specification.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Dom
> > 
> > 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0086.html
> > 
> >
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-
> 8160 x120 Managing Director                            Fax: +1 
> 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota                            Inet:
shane@aptest.com
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 16:45:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 February 2010 18:12:50 GMT