- From: <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:21:11 -0700
- To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
- Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org, www-international@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF25AB12A4.0EB9D733-ON882572BC.006A26AB-882572BC.006A796F@spe.sony.com>
With respect to computer language snippets, isn't that what the <code> tag is for -- at least in XHTML? Regards, Karen Broome Metadata Systems Designer Sony Pictures Entertainment 310.244.4384 Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> Sent by: www-international-request@w3.org 04/13/2007 03:48 AM To www-international@w3.org cc ltru@lists.ietf.org Subject Re: For review: Tagging text with no language John Cowan wrote: > BCP 47 explicitly excludes computer languages from its scope, as do > the ISO 639 family of standards. So "zxx" is the only available tag. Tagging source code snippets as "zxx" would be barbaric. But it's a case where "" is clearly better than "und". Actually I think "" is always better than "und" unless I intend to flag something for later review. In the context of Richard's article and XML documents, for other purposes it might be different. The use of "und" in XHTML 1.0 is IMO only a temporary kludge until the DTD is fixed. Doug argued that "" is a placeholder, I think it's not in XML, it has a clear effect of breaking any inherited xml:lang, resetting anything interested in language tags (CSS, spell checkers, Web crawlers, etc.) to their default "no language specified" behaviour. It's IMO perfectly okay to have very different styles for "i-default", "und", "zxx", "art", "mul", etc. With "" meaning "none of those". Frank
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 19:43:52 UTC