These are comments on behalf of the I18N Core WG, unless otherwise stated. The Owner column indicates who has been assigned the responsibility of tracking discussions on a given comment.
We recommend that responses to the comments in this table use a separate email for each point. This makes it far easier to track threads. The Type column has the values S (serious), E (editorial) and T (typo).
To track discussion on a comment, search the public-i18n-list for the subject in the 3rd column. If the discussion breaks off into other relevant threads with a different subject, add appropriate search text to the last column.
|1||3.5||language attribute for literals||
There is no language attribute available for use on the emma:literal element. Please add one.
|2||4.2.5||Use of emma:lang||
It's not at all clear to us what the difference is between emma:lang and xml:lang, the relationship between them, or when we should use which. (It might help to create examples that show the use of xml:lang as well as emma:lang.)
[[In order handle inputs involving multiple languages, such as through code switching, the emma:lang tag MAY contain several language identifiers separated by spaces.]]
This is definitely something you cannot do with xml:lang, but we are wondering what is the value of doing it anyway. We are not sure what benefit it would provide.
|3||4.2.5||multiple language value separators||
[[several language identifiers separated by spaces]]
HTTP and HTML meta elements also allow for multiple language tags, but use commas to separate tags, rather than just spaces. It may reduce confusion to follow the same approach.
|4||4.2.5||Use of xml:lang=""||
In XML 1.0 you can indicate the lack of language information using xml:lang="". How does EMMA allow for that with xml:lang and emma:lang? We feel it ought to. See http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language
[[in order handle]]
-> 'in order to handle' ?
|6||2.1||definition of URI not normative||
A definition of URI is given in the Terminology section that defines it in terms of RFC 3986 and XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes, but that section is not normative. We think the definition of URI should be normative.
|7||2.1||IRIs and URIs||
[[A URI is a unifying syntax for the expression of names and addresses of objects on the network as used in the World Wide Web (RFC3986). A URI is defined as any legal anyURI primitive as defined in XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition Section 3.2.17 [SCHEMA2].]]
We are concerned that you are disallowing IRIs here. (Btw, we did propose that you reference RFC 3987 as part of the first comment in a previous review, and you agreed to implement that comment, but you seem to have overlooked this aspect.) The XML Schema 1.0 definition of anyURI does not encompass IRIs either (though this will be changed for XML Schema 1.1).
We suggest that you adopt a definition like that of XQuery. The XQuery definition reads:
"Within this specification, the term URI refers to a Universal Resource Identifier as defined in [RFC3986] and extended in [RFC3987] with the new name IRI. The term URI has been retained in preference to IRI to avoid introducing new names for concepts such as "Base URI" that are defined or referenced across the whole family of XML specifications."
You do, btw, have a reference to RFC 3987 in the normative references, but nothing in the document links to that.
Version: $Id: Overview.html,v 1.6 2007/10/09 13:47:16 rishida Exp $