Re: [CDR Framework] i18n comment: Language identification for child documents

Mark Baker wrote:
> My apologies (to you as well as the CDF WG) for not mentioning this
> earlier, but please let us know within two weeks if our responses in
> this thread haven't addressed your issue.

No, my apologies: To answer a reply to a comment within two weeks is
common sense, and I feel very sorry that we are taken so much of your time.


> Thanks.
> Mark.
> On 1/30/06, Mark Baker <> wrote:
>> Hello Felix, thanks for your comments.
>> On 1/25/06, <> wrote:
>>> Comment from the i18n review of:
>>> Comment 5
>>> At
>>> Editorial/substantive: S
>>> Location in reviewed document:
>>>  general
>>> Comment:
>>> If you ask an SVG document about language information, and the document is inside an HTML document, the xml:lang attribute in the HTML applies to the SVG as well. It seems that the compounding specs should say: \"You should get the same results for both inclusion and referencel.\"
>> The WG has just discussed this, and we feel that for the CDR case -
>> which is all the current set of Last Call drafts cover - the value of
>> the xml:lang attribute in any containing HTML should *not* apply to
>> children, because it isn't authoritative (as described in the TAG's
>> finding on authoritative metadata[1]) as a result of requiring
>> multiple messages to assemble the compound document.  Consider, for
>> example, that the child document might be returned with an HTTP
>> message which includes a Content-Language header (sec 14.12 of RFC
>> 2616) with a (authoritative) value inconsistent with that specified by
>> the xml:lang attribute.  More generally too, content may be retrieved
>> from multiple domains over which the author of the containing document
>> has no control, and therefore propagating the value of attributes like
>> xml:lang doesn't seem appropriate.
>>  [1]
>> Thanks.
>> Mark.
> --
> Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 01:38:33 UTC