[Bug 16520] New: Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16520

           Summary: Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: PC
               URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#specifying-the-language-
                    for-a-literal
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: HTML+RDFa (editor: Manu Sporny)
        AssignedTo: msporny@digitalbazaar.com
        ReportedBy: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,
                    public-html@w3.org, msporny@digitalbazaar.com


The HTML+RDFa spec says:

]] If an author is editing an HTML fragment and is unsure of the final
encapsulating MIME type for their markup, it is suggested that the author
specify both lang and xml:lang [[

    NIT: "If an author is [snip] for their markup".
Correct: "If an author is [snip] for his/her markup".

ISSUE: The advice proliferate the belief that XML mime types *need* xml:lang.
But it is only if they don't understand XHTML that they *need* xml:lang. They
might very well not understand XHTML. But is that related to the MIME type?

The only use case I have heard for xml:lang is XML authoring tools - thus, not
exactly "the final encapsulating MIME type". XML parsers of the Web browser
kind (IE/Webkit/Opera/Gecko) do understand the @lang attribute. (Though there
might be legacy versions which don't.) And e.g. the XHTML+RDFa DOCTYPE supports
both @lang and @xml:lang.

Are there any *real* reasons for using both attributes - unrelated to authors'
fears and feelings? Such as legacy RDFa parsers? Or specific XML authoring
tools? Or specific consumers?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 08:13:52 UTC