- From: Michael Sperberg-McQueen <U35395@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 96 08:17:37 CDT
- To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>, W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 06:22:28 -0400 Rick Jelliffe said: >Also, the round-trip rule and unification makes it impossible to specify >other variants in the code. However, when SGML is added, who cares? All >the extra information can be contained in markup: it is just a matter of >setting agreed semantics of the markup. This seems to represent a third requirement for XML's i18n support; is that a plausible interpretation? (The first two I see are 1 handling a suitably large character repertoire, 2 allowing non-Ascii characters in names.) Is the requirement met by ensuring XML DTDs have a well-known method for indicating language (and geographic language variant?) in content, or will more information be needed than is carried by a LANG attribute of the sort we know from TEI, from DocBook, or from the HTML i18n proposals? >And the issue of user-defined characters is irrelevent unless there is a >mechanism for accessing their glyphs over the Web. Until there is, there is >no point trying to allow for them in XML. A fourth requirement? Or should this be outside the scope of XML? -C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Received on Monday, 16 September 1996 09:25:00 UTC