W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: XML Core WG needs input on xml:lang=""

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:19:30 +0200
Message-ID: <10911364765.20020802171930@w3.org>
To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
CC: w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org

On Friday, August 2, 2002, 4:52:07 PM, John wrote:

JC> Chris Lilley scripsit:

>> Aha. The last part of your sentence means this is a rather different
>> proposal than I had thought.

JC> Please note that this part was in error. xml:lang="" *may* signal that
JC> that a non-human language is in use, but does not require it: it is
JC> formally the same as not using xml:lang at all.

Thanks for the clarification, it makes me much happier.

>> A question. Is
>> 
>> <foo/>
>> 
>> thus equivalent to
>> 
>> <foo xml:lang="und"/>
>> 
>> and not equivalent to
>> 
>> <foo xml:lang=""/>

JC> No, the first and third are equivalent.

Ok, great.

>> Is "" appropriate for "undeclaring" a previously declared language?
>> Would "nal" or somesuch (by analogy with NaN for numbers) not be more
>> appropriate for non-human languages? You could then declare the value
>> of xml:lang to be "" or "xml:nal" or "an RFC 3066 code" and keep "" to
>> mean "undeclare" rather than "declare a specific thing". 

JC> Non-human languages are simply out of scope for xml:lang, so what we
JC> are showing here is that xml:lang is effectively undefined in the
JC> inner scope.  There is no need for an explicit code (also "nal" is
JC> reserved for use by the ISO 639-2 registration authority).

Yes, this is why I used xml:nal which ISO 639 cannot assign but XML
core WG can. But because of your clarification above, its no longer
needed. "" undeclares a value from the enclosing scope. Perfect.


>> Second question, for the root element - it has no text content and two
>> children in different languages. Would "und" be appropriate here?
>> Doesn't seem like it - the two languages of the content of the element
>> are both known. Is "" apropriate? Seems not either

JC> Yes, "" is appropriate here (which is the same thing as not having any).

Great. und would have been a problem, in terms of resource matching
given an Accept-language (or a SMIl or SVG system-language test). ""
fits the bill just fine.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 11:19:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:32 GMT