RE: How do I say 'this is not in any language' in XHTML/HTML

Thanks Jon !

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
 
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Hanna [mailto:jon@hackcraft.net] 
> Sent: 22 March 2007 14:39
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Re: How do I say 'this is not in any language' in XHTML/HTML
> 
> 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.
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007 07:52

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2007 15:50:58 UTC