Re: [Ltru] Re: For review: Tagging text with no language

HTML is not the only place that language tags are used....

On 4/13/07, Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>


-- 
Mark