W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated codes [l ong]

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>
Message-ID: <001001c000bb$52a39330$1b19da18@ne.mediaone.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:30 GMT