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

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Welch <> wrote:
>> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n
>> guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
> Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code
> sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts.... my bad.
>> 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]
> That's interesting, because xml:lang seems pretty redundant otherwise!

Alright, lets see a show of hands for this approach! Who supports us
just having a single config.xml with a bunch of repeated elements, but
with different xml:langs?

Advantages here are:
  *  we only need to make very small modifications to the parsing model.
  *  no more searching for config docs in locale folders
  *  no multiple parsing of config files

 * large, and, if not careful, hard to maintain config files

Kind regards,

Marcos Caceres

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 16:07:07 UTC