- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:14:46 +0000
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- CC: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:17 AM > Yes. There's much repetition. How about: > > <ext lang=en> > EU Greeting: > Message: Hello! > Date: 2010-06-01 > </ext> > > <ext lang=nl> > EU Groet > Bericht: Hallo! > Datum: 2010-06-01 > </ext> > > <ext lang=fr> > EU Salut > Message: Bonjour! > Date: 2010-06-01 > </ext> > > This is the minimalist in me talking, I can probably live with more > structure, but my experience is that schemas with much structure tend > to be less understood and, consequently, less used. > I wonder if anyone from Microsoft ever +1'ed Hakon. So here is the historical moment: +1 ! Also, deep schemas with repetition are much more prone to ambiguity. For instance, if I find this: <item> <name> <text lang="en">Message</text> </name> <value> <text lang="fr">Bonjour!</text> </value> </item> ...something is clearly wrong to the human reader but code can't tell and needs rules. However, is this wrong ? <item> <name> <text lang="en">Contributor</text> </name> <value> <text lang="jp">...<hiragana name>...</text> </value> </item>
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 16:15:24 UTC