W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > September 2006

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] xml:lang = language info, please

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 11:29:44 +0100
To: "'Yves Savourel'" <ysavourel@translate.com>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007f01c6e156$afe0cc20$6501a8c0@w3cishida>

I'm satisfied with the text as of today's date.

Thanks,
RI


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

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] 
> Sent: 21 September 2006 16:37
> To: 'Richard Ishida'; 'Felix Sasaki'
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] xml:lang = language info, please
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> The reference has been changed to 'RFC3066 or its successor' 
> with a link to a reference to the "Language Identification" 
> section of the XML specification.
> See 
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#l
> anginfo-definition
> 
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we 
> don't hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
> 
> Cheers,
> -yves
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 1:09 PM
> To: 'Felix Sasaki'
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] xml:lang = language info, please
> 
> 
> Personal comment:
> 
> "Applying the language information data category to xml:lang 
> attributes using global rules is not necessary, since 
> xml:lang is already defined in terms of [RFC 4646]."
> 
> Strictly speaking xml is defined in terms of RFC 3066 or its 
> successor.  It may be better to say "in terms of [BCP 47]" at 
> this location.  If not, you should add, or it's successor.  
> (Bear in mind that RFC 4646bis is just around the corner, relatively
> speaking.)
> 
> RI
> 
Received on Tuesday, 26 September 2006 10:30:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:36 GMT