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

I have to agree with Mark here. It is very important to make clear that
xml:lang inherits inside the XML document. But it would not be appropriate
to make it apply to documents that are just referenced. This is similar
to the HTML case, where html:lang on a frame document never applied
to the individual frame contents.

Regards,    Martin.


At 10:04 06/01/31, Mark Baker wrote:
 >
 >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 10:22:42 UTC