- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 18:03:31 -0400
- To: "Mike Brown" <mbrown@corp.webb.net>, <unicode@unicode.org>
- Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <xml-editor@w3.org>
Mike Brown wrote: > > XML 1.0 says that xml:lang attributes must match production 33 for > well-formedness -- on that all seem to agree. But XML 1.0's normative > reference to RFC 1766 and the language of that RFC together *could* imply > that the 2-letter language code portion of xml:lang values must > not only be > 2 ASCII characters, but must also match ISO 639 2-letter language codes in > order to be valid. Actually production [34] states that the LangCode is one of: ISO639Code | IanaCode | UserCode > > There still remains the unclear issue of whether xml:lang validity really > should correlate to strict RFC 1766 conformance, down to the selection of > language codes from ISO 639-1. You can use IanaCode (prefixed with 'i' | 'I') or UserCode (prefixed with 'x' | 'X'), neither of which have a 2 character limit. All options are valid. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
Received on Monday, 7 August 2000 18:19:31 UTC