W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: New article published: xml:lang in XML document schemas

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:16:13 +0000
Message-ID: <4389BFAD.5090904@hpl.hp.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "John.Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk>, www-international@w3.org

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> 
> It seems to me that we are discussing s.t. which is not the topic of the 
> article. The article is a FAQ about whether you sould use xml:lang or 
> s.t. else. The topic of our discussion is rather a side issue for this 
> article, and for that reason I don't see a harm in leaving the article 
> as it is. Our issue seems to be a QA "Do I need to declare xml:lang in 
> my XML document schema?", with the aspect of different schema languages 
> and another aspect of testing constraints of RFC 3066 or further 
> constraining them. The discussion about this was very helpful and could 
> be an input to such a short FAQ. Any thoughts on this?
> 

I felt that my query as to the technical correctness of the article has 
been adequately addressed, (revealing my error). The discussion revealed 
a surprising aspect of schema that is correctly portrayed in the 
article. I see no need for change in the article.

I have found the discussion helpful. It is unclear to me whether the 
self-selecting group on www-international is the target audience of the 
FAQs. I suspect many audiences will accept the current FAQ's instruction 
to declare xml:lang in an XML Schema. (The observation that you can 
refine the definition to say restrict the acceptable languages may be 
pertinent to such an audience)

Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 27 November 2005 14:18:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:06 GMT