- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:42:50 +0100
- To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, public-xhtml2@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org
- Cc: fd@w3.org
Richard, The XHTML2 WG strongly supports this. Many thanks. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton For the XHTML2 WG On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:17:21 +0100, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > This topic was discussed last week in the i18n WG call, and the group > formally supports adding the lang attribute to the XHTML family as a > stopgap > means to enable language information to be recognised by html processors. > http://www.w3.org/2009/01/28-core-minutes.html#item07 > > We would also like to enlist the support of the BPWG and the XHTML WGs to > propose to the HTML5 WG that their spec recognise xml:lang as equivalent > to > lang, so that eventually XHTML can be written with a single language > attribute, ie. xml:lang, and still be recognised by html processors. > Would > your groups support this? > > RI > > ============ > Richard Ishida > Internationalization Lead > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > http://www.w3.org/International/ > http://rishida.net/ > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven Pemberton [mailto:steven.pemberton@cwi.nl] >> Sent: 28 January 2009 14:42 >> To: Richard Ishida; 'Dominique Hazael-Massieux'; public-xhtml2@w3.org; >> public-i18n-core@w3.org >> Cc: fd@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family? >> >> Hi Richard, >> >> This reply from you rings a bell that you had said that you would >> suggest >> this to the HTML5 group. I think you speak a lot of sense, and that it >> would be good if we could move to a future where browsers recognised >> both >> lang and xml:lang. >> >> Still, in the short term, it looks like we do need lang to be available >> for dual-purposing existing documents. >> >> Steven >> >> >> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:33:54 +0100, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > I'm copying in the i18n WG to this thread. >> > >> > I18n folks: See the following thread, where Dom proposes the >> > introduction >> > of the lang attribute to XHTML in addition to xml:lang, so that when >> > people >> > serve XHTML as text/html the language information is available. >> > >> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2009Jan/0049.html >> > >> > I was sure I had written something along these lines and sent to the >> > html5 >> > WG, but I don't seem to be able to find it. We certainly had some >> > discussion of it in the i18n WG a while back. >> > >> > I hear many complaints from authors using XHTML about having to >> declare >> > language twice, once with lang and once with xml:lang for XHTML 1.0, >> and >> > I >> > must say that I also find it burdensome myself. I encourage people to >> > persevere because agents that process text/html don't recognise > xml:lang, >> > but agents that process the file as XML (eg. using XSLT) only >> recognise >> > xml:lang. >> > >> > I would very much like to reach a situation where an author could just >> > use >> > one or other of these attributes, and achieve the desired result. >> > >> > I was originally thinking, however, that we should ask the HTML5 >> people >> > to >> > write their spec such that future processors of text/html would > recognise >> > both lang and xml:lang as equivalent. That way it wouldn't be >> necessary >> > for >> > the XHTML specs to change, and authors of XHTML would be able to use >> just >> > xml:lang, rather than both attributes. >> > >> > The idea that it might be possible to introduce lang to XHTML 1.1 etc > was >> > interesting, but I think that the problem would be that, if people >> don't >> > continue to use both attributes, xml processors would have to also be >> > changed to recognise that lang is equivalent to xml:lang (eg. so that > the >> > XPath lang() function would still work in XSLT or XQuery). In fact, I >> > think >> > that that would ultimately mean changing the XML spec, and the >> > Canonicalisation spec, XML Schema, etc. I think that many people >> would >> > only >> > use lang when writing XHTML, and then we'd have the opposite problem >> from >> > the one we're trying to fix, ie. that XHTML doesn't work as it should >> as >> > XML. >> > >> > I can't say what level of acceptance the idea would have with the >> HTML5 >> > folks, but it seems to me that moving text/html processors to accept >> > xml:lang as equivalent to lang would be more effective, and perhaps >> > easier. >> > >> > Ok, so what am I missing? >> > >> > RI >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ============ >> > Richard Ishida >> > Internationalization Lead >> > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) >> > >> > http://www.w3.org/International/ >> > http://rishida.net/ >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux [mailto:dom@w3.org] >> >> Sent: 21 January 2009 08:24 >> >> To: public-xhtml2@w3.org >> >> Cc: ishida@w3.org; fd@w3.org >> >> Subject: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family? >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> The to-be-published version of the XHTML Media Types note allows for >> any >> >> XHTML Family document to be served as text/html: >> >> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2009/ED-xhtml-media-types-20090116/ >> >> >> >> But as was discussed in this very list [1], this is problematic since >> >> the lang attribute (the only one interpreted as a language annotation > on >> >> documents served as text/html) is not allowed by the XHTML DTDs (but >> the >> >> XHTML 1.0 one). >> >> >> >> Could the lang attribute be added to the relevant DTDs so as to >> enable >> >> properly lang-marked up XHTML documents to be served as text/html? >> >> >> >> FWIW, I'm fairly confident I could get formal support from the Mobile >> >> Web Best Practices Working Group on this proposal if this is of any >> >> help, since this impacts negatively on the deployment of their >> mobileOK >> >> specification. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Dom >> >> >> >> 1. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xhtml2/2008Mar/0086.html >> > >> > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 15:43:04 UTC