More on tagging code:
From reading "Internationalization Best Practices"
if you have an element in HTML of XML code with an attribute value such as "Swedish" (for a title or something)
(here's the example from Internationalization Best Practices":
<p title="Swedish"><a xml:lang="sv" lang="sv" href="http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/index.sv.html">svenska</a></p>
then you do need to tag the language of that attribute value;
you do so by inserting in your document a second element if necessary (which serves to enclose the HTML or XML element, and set it off from the rest of the text).
But you only need to do this if the language of the attribute value is different from that of the text content elsewhere in the document.
But you never apparently tag the language of the attribute itself, the attribute "title" in this case, which is clearly English ( HTML and XML code are derived from English). Just the language of the value!
>Peter Constable wrote:
> > The meaning of zxx must be interpreted in terms of the coding standard
> > of which it is a part. ISO 639 is explicitly about coding human
> > languages. ?No linguistic content? in the case of zxx means ?no
> > content in any human language?. If a language tag must be applied to
> > something like ?ifdef DEBUG?, then the appropriate language subtag
> > would be zxx.
>Okay, that's very important for Mark's table, Richard's aricle, and
>IMO it deserves a comment for "zxx" in the language subtag registry:
>art = artificial human language, no programming language
>zxx = no linguistic content wrt. human languages, but it can be a
> programming language
(Still distraught as John C. has told me that there are now programming languages which make use of keywords in different languages.
So maybe just a note--programming languages are tagged as zxx even though of course code is derived from real languages; and maybe a reference to the existence of a few non-English programming language
but if no one else thinks this is proper, I'll withdraw my suggestion
>Ignoring those real (non-fictional) alien languages for the moment.
>So in a context where I can't use xml:lang="" I'd pick xml:lang="und"
>if I don't know what it is, and it's likely a human language.
>And I'd pick xml:lang="zxx" for a programming language if tools need
>to know that it's certainly not in the otherwise inherited xml:lang.