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

[Bug 2576] Clarify relation of language type to xml:lang

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:18:43 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1EktNr-000559-15@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: Clarify relation of language type to xml:lang
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org

In a comment of August 2004 [1], Paul Biron suggests a correction
to the description of the language type, to make it accept the
empty string, in the same way that the xml:lang attribute can
have the empty string as a value (with the meaning:  any
language information given for parents does not necessarily 
apply here).  He also suggests ensuring that xsd:language is
aligned with RFC 3066 bis.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004JulSep/0086.html

In February 2005 ([2], member-only link), the WG appears to have
been persuaded that a correction should be issued.

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Feb/0096.html

I believe that since that time, a contrary view has gained ground,
which holds that xml:lang should simply be defined as a union of
xsd:language and a string-based type with a single enumerated value,
namely the empty string.  I find that approach satisfactory, myself.

But the comment from Paul Biron, and the analogous comment from
the SVG working group, suggest that even if we don't change
xsd:language, an explanatory note would be useful.

On the empty string issue, the WG needs to decide whether (a) to 
issue a correction to 1.0, including the empty string in the 
lexical and value spaces of xsd:language, (b) to do nothing,
or (c) add a note observing that xml:lang and any construct
intended to behave like it should be defined as a union of
xsd:language and the empty string.

On the 3066bis issue, the WG needs to decide whether to align
xsd:language in XSD 1.0 with 3066bis, or allow our language
type and the language codes specified by the IETF to go out of
alignment with each other.
Received on Saturday, 10 December 2005 01:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:04 UTC