- 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