- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:25:22 -0000
- To: "'Jon Hanna'" <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Cc: <www-international@w3.org>
So I drafted an updated (largely rewritten) version at http://esw.w3.org/topic/geoNoLanguageTag Am I getting close to the answer now? 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. >
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 19:25:32 UTC