- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:09:21 +0200
Ian Hickson wrote: >> Is there any reason for not making that "must not"? The only >> reason someone would ever have for using lang instead of xml:lang >> in XHTML is when serving it as text/html, which is strictly >> forbidden in this version. It should be stated that lang is for >> HTML only and xml:lang is for X(HT)ML only. > > Done. > > >> I think the heading for the attribute defintion should be updated >> to include xml:lang as well. > > Done. I assume we are going to do something similar for 'xml:id' when that becomes REC? Or do the issues with regard to type ID need to be sorted out first? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Sunday, 17 April 2005 11:09:21 UTC