- From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:09:55 -0800
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, public-cdf@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit : > Well, if there is no explicit language information you have to guess. xml:lang is explicit language information. The issue is that the CDR spec should say that its scope extends to referred-to objects in a compound document, just like it deals with events, so that the CDR works just like a CDI. > I don't see why guessing just based on the language of the referencing > element would necessarily give better results than guessing based on, Did you read the little scenario I made up? Don't you think that *not* changing the styling/behaviour when going from a CDI to an equivalent CDR is better that changing it to some random outcome based on guessing? > say, n-gram analysis, or why interoperable results are more important > than good results. I'm afraid that specs don't define good results. If a spec is clear, the authors can conform to it and expect browsers to give the good results that they intend. The CDR spec currently does not discuss xml:lang (or lang from HTML) and IMHO it should say that it propagates across references and that it can be overridden just as it can in XML, plus by a HTTP (or other protocol) header. -- François Yergeau
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 16:10:14 UTC