W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Regarding update of language declaration tests (I81NWG)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:38:49 +0200
To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100419013849248009.a986ad9b@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CE Whitehead, Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:19:15 -0400:
> Leif Halvard Silli,  Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:45:31 +0200
  ...
> Elsewhere however Koch notes that:
>> in languages based on XHTML Modularization 1.1, the empty string is 
>> (formally) DTD-valid and XML-Schema-valid.
> and that:
>>  in "XHTML 1.1 + RDFa" the empty string is (formally) DTD-valid.

And he could have added HTML5 and XHTML5, were it is also valid.

> As I think you know, Richard Ishida suggests using lang="und"  
> where lang= the empty string is not supported in xml; otherwise his 
> article recommends
> the use of the emptry string that the working group is now trying to 
> make invalid; see:
> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language

Thanks for the pointer. Since XHTML5 and HTML5 support the empty 
string, the consequence of the advice in that article, must be that one 
should *not* use "und" in XHTML5 and HTMl5.

The problem, however, is browser support ... They do not seem to care 
about the so called "schema". 'und' has better support than the empty 
string.

PS: As you quoted above, the empty string is allowed in XHTML 1.1, so 
that article is not accurate when it states that "you can't use the 
empty string in XHTML".
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 23:39:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 April 2010 23:39:25 GMT