Re: i18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]

On Thursday, December 9, 2010, 1:17:31 PM, Richard wrote:

RI> I18n-ISSUE-2 (r12a): Why not using xml:lang? [WOFF]

RI> "The text elements MAY be given a lang attribute."
RI> Why are you inventing your own lang attribute, rather than using xml:lang for this?

The original impetus for this attribute was to allow automatic switching between a set of linguistic alternatives. So it was more along the lines of the SMIL (and SVG) systemLanguage attribute [1].

Thus, it wasn't initially clear that it was the same as xml:lang (and your own later comments indicated that you were not sure, either). After some discussion, the WG is swayed by your initial comment and Martin Dürst's later comment[2] and considers that yes, it is in fact the same as xml:lang.

We have therefore decided to switch to xml:lang in the spec and to recommend this attribute for all new content; but also, given the existing deployment, to note that in legacy conent lang may also be encountered and to treat this as xml:lang.

We don't want to allow the two to be mixed (else we have to say which has precedence if they have different values, etc) so current content will use lang and new content will use xml:lang.

So, in summary, we agree to your change request. Please confirm that this satisfies your comment.

Tracker, this relates to WOFF-ACTION-59: Respond to I18n-ISSUE-2


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL/smil-content.html#adef-systemLanguage
    http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#SystemLanguageAttribute
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010OctDec/0100.html
-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 14:01:36 UTC