Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?

Greetings Dom, as Shane indicated in his first reply we recognise the 
benefit of doing what you suggest and intend to add @lang as part of XHTML 
1.2. We did consider adding it as part of a PER but felt that it would not 
make it through the process since it would have a compatibility issues. 
Our judgement may have been over cautious and we would be prepared to work 
with you and the Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group to investigate 
whether we could succeed if we went the route of a PER.

Can you determine whether the MWBP would be prepared to work with us to 
try the PER route and get back to us if support, and possibly assistance, 
would be forthcoming.

Regards, Roland



From:
Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
To:
Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc:
public-xhtml2@w3.org, ishida@w3.org, fd@w3.org
Date:
21/01/2009 14:55
Subject:
Re: Can we have @lang back in XHTML Family?




Le mercredi 21 janvier 2009 à 08:36 -0600, Shane McCarron a écrit :
> Actually, I don't think we can.  Putting @lang into XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 
> Basic 1.1 or XHTML Print 1.0 would change the conformance requirements 
> on currently conforming user agents.

Indeed, but I think the cost of making that change (i.e. go through the
Proposed Edited Recommendation process) is lesser than the cost of not
making it - that is putting millions of authors in having to choose
between:
 * creating valid content
 * serving content that can be view with the most widely available
browser today
 * serving content that can be properly language-annotated

Dom











Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU