- From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 15:15:44 -0400
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- CC: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>, w3c-xml-plenary@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, xml-editor@w3.org, w3c-xml-core-wg@w3.org, John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Should this change be an erratum to XML 1.0, or part of XML 1.1? Can someone clarify for me: I am under the impression that using xml:lang="" today would be invalid XML. Therefore the document containing it should be rejected, no? Changing a parser to support the empty value is (probably) not like adding another value to a table (as was suggested in the thread somewhere I believe). I would guess a parser that checks for this error would have code checking for an empty string and the code would need to be amended. So, making this an erratum is not like updating a table. I would agree that supporting it sooner is a good thing, but it seems this creates an atmosphere of not knowing whether to use xml:lang="" since some parsers would reject it and others accept it, depending on whether the parsers code has been updated. Keying it to a version would make it reliable. I do recognize it is a very small code change. What am I missing, that would make this erratum something that could be depended on in a reasonable time frame? -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 4 August 2002 15:15:51 UTC