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

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

To be clear, the proposal is:
<widget xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets">
   <name xml:lang="fr">Mon widget</name>
   <name xml:lang="en">My Widget</name>
   <name>Widget</name>
</widget>

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:32:57 UTC