RE: lang implementation report

We carefully re-considered whether [language] and xml:lang fixup are
beneficial despite their cost, and decided that they are.  This issue
arose in coordination with other W3C groups such as the I18N WG and the
TAG.  Those requests led us to the current design, which we feel is a
cost-effective (though non-trivial) option.

We recognize that this is a cost-benefit tradeoff with room for
legitimate viewpoints on each side.  We are willing to escalate your
dissent through our Proposed Recommendation process if you'd like.
Please let us know whether you are satisfied that we've considered your
point of view adequately, or whether you'd like the Director to consider
this point of contention during his review.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xml-xinclude-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-xinclude-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Elliotte Harold
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 6:06 AM
> To: www-xml-xinclude-comments@w3.org
> Subject: xml:lang implementation report
> 
> 
> Implementing the handling of xml:lang according to the latest CR is
> proving to be much more painful than I expected. It's doable, but it's
> going to require some nasty hacks. The big problem seems to occur
> whenever the XPointer implementation is decoupled from the XInclude
> implementation. The XInclude implementation knows what the current
> language is into which the nodes will be embedded but the XPointer
> implementation probably does not know this. Therefore the XPointer
> implementation cannot decide whether or not to add an xml:lang
attribute
> to the nodes it returns because it doesn't know whether or not these
are
> redundant. It might be a little easier to implement if the the
XInclude
> implementation were allowed to add redundant xml:lang attributes
rather
> than only ones that changed the language in effect. But overall, I'd
> really just prefer this language annotation to be dropped completely.
> 
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold

Received on Monday, 12 July 2004 18:22:39 UTC