- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:43:52 +0100
- To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com, Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com, public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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> > > heh... be careful that looks very similar to this "Best Practice": > > "Avoid document formats that store multiple localized versions of > content within the same document." > > http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#DevMLDoc > > :) That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n guidelines say it's bad practice,'. However, Addison Phillips, the Chair of i18n core, said the following in the formal feedback representing the i18n WG's LC comments for the spec [1]: "Section 7.4 (Widget) The various language bearing elements such as <name>, <description>, etc. are of the zero-or-one type. However, it is typically better to allow any number of these elements to occur, provided that none share the same xml:lang. This allows for localization (which is part of the point in allowing xml:lang on the element)." So we have been blessed by them to do this... umm.... this somewhat questionable, yet problem solving thing :) [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0259.html -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 15:44:33 UTC