- From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 10:40:48 +0100
- To: www-international@w3.org
>I _agree_ that there's a use for tagging this general sort >of transformation. Fine. >I _disagree_ that it should be done by over-loading the existing >language headers/language-tags as used in HTTP and HTML. I am open to suggestion regarding the mechanism/syntax. I prefer the _clean_ way where every bit of information is in his own little box and properly tagged. The reason for proposing the extension (over-loading) RF 1766 is because: - It feels like a natural extension (not too much overloading) - Easier to implement - Probably more acceptable to the standization community >If it needs to be marked up on portions of a document, >then I'd say we should propose a new attribute for a >HTML DTD. The arguments for having a standard markup >are pretty much the same as LANG: it helps spell-checkers, >hyphentation software, and so forth to do the right thing. So two general mechanism are proposed: - Extension of RFC 1766 - Attribute in LANG + field in header ? Comments ? Regards Tomas
Received on Thursday, 22 October 1998 05:41:23 UTC