W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Official ISO 639 changes

From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:22:07 -0700
Message-ID: <04ec01bfaf2e$9a42aac0$6500000a@brownell.org>
To: "John Cowan" <cowan@locke.ccil.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: <unicode@unicode.org>, <xml-dev@xml.org>, <xml-editor@w3.org>
> > Whether it's important or not, all XML 1.0 conforming parsers today 
> > do check xml:lang values, at least to the extent of making sure 
> > they're two letters and not three. Failing to do so is a 
> > well-formedness error because of Production 35.
> Oddly enough, this is not true.  Production 35 is not reachable from any
> other production,

I think you meant [33] (unless some erratum renumbered
the grammar productions).

>     and there is no "must" language in clause 2.12
> (except "must be declared in valid documents", which is not relevant).
> A document meets the technical definition of well-formedness in 
> clause 2.1 even if its xml:lang attribute values are crud.

Right, but 


says that validation must (at user option) provide a crud-alert.

- Dave

p.s. no, parsers aren't consistent on this point yet.
    I want to see agreement on WF-ness, too.
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2000 23:22:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:39 UTC