- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:38:49 +0200
- To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
CE Whitehead, Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:19:15 -0400: > Leif Halvard Silli, Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:45:31 +0200 ... > Elsewhere however Koch notes that: >> in languages based on XHTML Modularization 1.1, the empty string is >> (formally) DTD-valid and XML-Schema-valid. > and that: >> in "XHTML 1.1 + RDFa" the empty string is (formally) DTD-valid. And he could have added HTML5 and XHTML5, were it is also valid. > As I think you know, Richard Ishida suggests using lang="und" > where lang= the empty string is not supported in xml; otherwise his > article recommends > the use of the emptry string that the working group is now trying to > make invalid; see: > http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language Thanks for the pointer. Since XHTML5 and HTML5 support the empty string, the consequence of the advice in that article, must be that one should *not* use "und" in XHTML5 and HTMl5. The problem, however, is browser support ... They do not seem to care about the so called "schema". 'und' has better support than the empty string. PS: As you quoted above, the empty string is allowed in XHTML 1.1, so that article is not accurate when it states that "you can't use the empty string in XHTML". -- leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 23:39:24 UTC