- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:04:21 +1100
- To: "fsasaki@w3.org" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Hello Felix, thanks for your comments. On 1/25/06, fsasaki@w3.org <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote: > > Comment from the i18n review of: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-CDR-20051219/ > > Comment 5 > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0601-cdf/ > 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] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/mime-respect.html Thanks. Mark.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 01:05:03 UTC