- From: Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:19:42 -0700
- To: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
What is the processing-side difference between "zxx" (no linguistic content) and "art" (artificial)? At 2007.03.22-14:38(+0000), Jon Hanna wrote: >Richard Ishida wrote: >>I'm still not clear about the distinction between xml:lang="" and >>xml:lang="und". Any suggestions? > >If xml:lang is spec'd in a particular schema to allow an empty string then >xml:lang="und" is a bug and xml:lang="" is not. > >If it is not spec'd to allow an empty string then xml:lang="und" is not a >bug and xml:lang="" is! > >RFC 4646, like RFC 3066 before it expliclty states that und SHOULD not be >used unless a protocol forces one to state a language tag. Since xml:lang >does not force any use and is specified as stating that the empty string >is allowed unless another specification (e.g. XHTML1.0) says otherwise. > >RFC 4646, again lke RFC 3066 before it, states that the lack of a language >code means Undetermined (just as und does in a protocol that doesn't allow >an empty language code). > >I agree with those who consider XHTML1.0 not allowing an empty xml:lang >attribute value as obsolete (or an error? Did the first edition of the >XML1.0 spec prohibit empty xml:lang?). > >Both of these cover cases where the language is not known. If it is >*known* that content does not contain any linguistic data then >xml:lang="zxx" should be used. > ---Steve Deach sdeach@adobe.com
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:21:08 UTC