- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:08:52 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Hello www-svg, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Nandini Ramani wrote: >>For the non-XML formats, there are a vast number of them and we do not >>intend to cover them all. However, if you have some suggested text, >>please send it to us. > > It should refer to the language code Is that a BCP 47 term? > of the language of the text, which > is to be matched in accord with one of the matching algorithms in one of > the RFC 3066 successors Right > instead of "the" xml:lang attribute. No. As well as, perhaps; as noted earlier we are not going to remove mention of the xml:lang attribute because it is the correct method for XML, because mentioning it gives greater guidance for implementors and authors and because it gives greater testability. > The I18N > Core Working Group can propose better text than I. We will ask them if they can suggest anything that covers all non-xml formats. >>Quoting from the XHTML spec: >>"Use both the lang and xml:lang attributes when specifying the language >>of an element. The value of the xml:lang attribute takes precedence." >> >>So, looking at xml:lang would be correct. > > If there are both. Using both is not required, it is documented as > sort-of a good idea when and if compatibility with HTML browsers is > desired. Right. If there are both, then xml:lang takes precedence so the value of lang is irrelevant (but should be the same). If there is only one, in xhtml, its xml:lang. if there is only one,in 'classic' non-xml html, then its lang - and its a non-xml format. So we seem to have all the cases covered there. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 09:08:54 UTC