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

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM,  <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com> 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
http://datadriven.com.au

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