RE: RFC2518bis: xml:lang (2.6)

A specific location for the lang attribute is good.  It is more tightly
constrained, which makes it easier for both clients and servers to
handle XML with property values.

 

Please explain why it is important to be flexible in this case. Also, if
the lang attribute must be legal in more than one location, explain if
there is any semantic difference between the multiple locations.  Also,
explain what happens if the lang attribute is present in multiple
locations scoped to the same property, particularly if it has different
values in different locations!

 

If some servers will be slightly incompatible with RFC2518bis because of
making the location specific, I understand that's undesirable. However,
I think in the long run it will make interoperability more likely for
this feature, and the benefits will outweigh the costs.

 

Lisa

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:53 AM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG (E-mail); w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: RFC2518bis: xml:lang (2.6)

 

I agree with Geoff and Julian that the 2518bis wording is not right
because it specifies a specific location for that attribute.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002JanMar/0318.html

I also acknowledge that it's not easy to come up with a wording for this
behavior. Sorry Lisa :-)

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com