- From: Maik Stührenberg <maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 12:03:50 +0200
- To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Cc: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>, public-microxml@w3.org
As a non-native speaker of English (as without any doubt anyone can deduce from my messages to the list so far), I would definitely vote for the XML 1.0 (5th ed.) way -- since I always see my students use non-English element and attribute names (against better knowledge). So, +1 from my side. John Cowan schrieb: > James Clark scripsit: > >> Non-ASCII names don't seem to be used all that much. However, I don't have >> any hard data. More importantly, I believe MicroXML should support users >> doing generic markup in the "right" way. If you are designing a vocabulary >> for something that is inherently specific to a particular country, then >> it's a perfectly natural, reasonable thing to do is to use the language of >> that country for the names of your elements and attributes. > > The Ethiopic XML Group (I may have the name wrong) was an early supporter > of XML 1.1, because they wanted to use specifically Amharic and Ge'ez > names for things in their calendar, and those languages are pretty > unreadable in transliteration. > >> I also think it would look really bad for a committee of anglophones to >> decide on behalf of the non-English speaking peoples of the world that they >> should use English for their element and attribute names. > > +1 > -- Dr. Maik Stührenberg Universität Bielefeld Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft Universitätsstraße 25 33615 Bielefeld Telefon: +49 (0)521/106-2534 E-Mail: maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de http://www.maik-stuehrenberg.de http://www.xstandoff.net
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 10:04:28 UTC