W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Updated Working Draft "Best Practices for XML Internationalization"

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:21:28 +0900
Message-ID: <4695E488.30901@w3.org>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, www-international@w3.org

Martin Duerst wrote:
> At 12:55 07/07/02, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
>   
>> Mark Davis wrote:
>>     
>
>   
>>> On 6/30/07, *Martin Duerst* <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp <mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>> wrote:
>>>       
>
>   
>>>     >> Include <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag>xml:lang in
>>>     your DTD or schema to allow to specify the natural language of the
>>>     content
>>>     >=>
>>>     >Where necessary, include
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag>xml:lang in your DTD
>>>     or schema to allow to specify the natural language of the content.
>>>     >
>>>     >[why? because an XML document that just has locale-independent
>>>     information like inventory counts of part numbers doesn't want to
>>>     have this. Ditto below.]
>>>
>>>     Agreed, but the wording should be different. "where necessary"
>>>     doesn't
>>>     say anything specific. I'd go for a wording more along the following
>>>     lines:
>>>
>>>     Include <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag>xml:lang in
>>>     your DTD or schema to allow to specify the natural language of the
>>>     content for all elements that may contain natual language. 
>>>
>>> That really doesn't capture it. If your DTD doesn't have natural language content, there is no need for xml:lang.
>>>       
>
> For both Mark's and Felix'es wording, it's not the DTD that
> contains natural language, but the actual documents described by
> the DTD or schema.
>   

agree.

>
>   
>> I would prefer Martin's wording and add after "may contain natrual language.": "If your DTD doesn't have natural language content, there is no need for xml:lang."
>>     
>
> So I would reword this as follows:
>
> "If an element is intended to never contain natural language,
> there is no need for xml:lang."
>
> This is just a clarification of the previous sentence, not really
> new information, the 'may' says it all.
>   

+1.

Felix
> Regards,    Martin.
>
>
>   
>> The "may contain" is important since there are cases which depend on the actual use, like the <code> element in HTML.
>>     
>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
>
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 08:21:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:14 GMT