Re: [widgets] Further argument for making config.xml mandatory

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM,  <> wrote:
> I still think that more than one config document is the most confusing
> aspect of this. Having just one (mandatory) config document, with the
> localized parts tagged with xml:lang attributes would be the simplest.
> However, as I understand it, the separate config files were recommended by
> the W3C I18N group.
> If this decision would be reversed, then anything in the config document
> that could (as per the schema) have an xml:lang attribute would by
> definition be localizable/localized. Others (like id, version etc.) would
> not be. That would also free the implementation from collecting all the
> various config documents, just to create and store an intersection of the
> elements. If you have two values for the same element, then who wins? The
> most specific (from the config in the localized folder), or the least
> specific (the default/fallback one from the root)?
> Proposal (feel free to ignore, due to pressure to be feature complete): make
> the config file mandatory, but allow it only in the root, then allow
> multiple elements with unique xml:lang attributes for those elements that
> are localizable.

True, that would solve this whole mess. Even thought the XML i18n
guidelines say it's bad practice, Addison Phillip of the i18n WG
suggested we do this in the LC feedback. I emailed them about a month
ago asking them if that is the right way to go, but never got a
response. So I say we go with Jere's proposal here.

Marcos Caceres

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:30:51 UTC