Re: CR-31 Response: Should xml:lang be allowed by default in all complex types?


Many thanks for your mail.  The I18N WG's formal response is in:


On 04/03/2001 21:38:22 Asir S Vedamuthu wrote:
> Dear i18N working group,
> The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several weeks working
> through the comments received from the public on the Candidate
> Recommendation (CR) of the XML Schema specification. We thank you for the
> comments you made on our specification during our CR comment period, and
> want to make sure you know that all comments received during the CR comment
> period have been recorded in our CR issues list
> (
> You raised the point registered as issue CR-31, Should xml:lang be allowed
> by default in all complex types?,
> Resolution - the <redefine/> mechanism provides precisely the requested
> functionality:
> xml:lang can be added to types defined without it; Bidi markup can be added
> to types with mixed content which did not provide for it as defined.
> Limitations - elements defined with simple types cannot be redefined to have
> mixed content.
> Amelioration - The type library will define a 'text' type, and the Primer
> will recommend its use. This has mixed content and allows any internal
> markup.
> It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
> decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the WG's
> decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of the W3C.
> Regards,
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> XML Schema Working Group

        Visit our Internet site at

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Friday, 9 March 2001 09:46:26 UTC