W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-editor@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Request for PR for XML 1.1

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:30:06 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031015132459.041373c8@172.27.10.30>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: W3C-xml-cg@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org

At 21:03 2003 10 13 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Monday, October 13, 2003, 6:39:03 PM, Paul wrote:
>
>PG> The XML Core WG requests publication of the following document as a W3C
>PG> Proposed Recommendation:
>PG> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/10/PR-xml11-20031010/Overview.html


>I note an error in this document. Although the error is in a Note and,
>perhaps, non-normative it is still incorrect and should be corrected.
>I do not believe that correction of the error would affect conformance
>of XML processors.
>
>2.12 Language Identification
>
>http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/10/PR-xml11-20031010/PR-xml11-20031010-review.html#sec-lang-tag
>
>
>> [IETF RFC 3066] tags are constructed from two-letter language codes
>> as defined by [ISO 639], from two-letter country codes as defined by
>> [ISO 3166], or from language identifiers registered with the
>> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA-LANGCODES]
>
>That is correct but not complete, and could lead implementors into
>error.
>
>Three-letter language codes are also standardized by ISO 639
>- this is a change from when XML 1.0 was originally written. Quoting
>from RFC 3066:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
>
>> All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to assignments found
>> in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the representation of names of
>> languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments
>> subsequently made by the ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or
>> governing standardization bodies.
>
>This error could be corrected by removing the note entirely...


In fact, the Erratum resolution at
http://www.w3.org/XML/xml-V10-2e-errata#E29
indicated that that Note was supposed to be deleted from both
the Third Edition and XML 1.1.  The fact that it wasn't deleted
was merely an editorial oversight which has now been corrected
in both drafts.

Thanks for catching this, Chris.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2003 14:47:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:46 UTC