- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:58:13 +0900
- To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
At 02:51 07/03/16, Richard Ishida wrote: >Your DTD or schema should provide the xml:lang attribute for this purpose. >See: Best Practice 1: Provide xml:lang to specify natural language content >for more information. > > Well it could also provide it's own attribute if it's a legacy > format. We should acknowledge that. I'm not sure how much "any legacy attribute name is okay" makes sense as a best practice. Practice yes, but *best* practice? In case we decide to mention this, we should be extremely careful to make sure that this is not misunderstood. >Background information > > * Internationalization FAQ: xml:lang in XML document schemas. > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-when-xmllang > > > I don't think this is interest to content authors. But the best practices are mostly for schema designers, not authors, yes? >Reference links > > * The values to use with xml:lang to specify a language. > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt This should very clearly mention BCP 47. In some months, we expect to have a new RFC with a new number. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 03:04:48 UTC