16190 2012-03-01 23:12:01 +0000 Polyglot Markup: Clarify that xml:lang is optional 2013-04-08 21:40:35 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG HTML/XHTML Compatibility Authoring Guide (ed: Eliot Graff) unspecified PC All CLOSED WORKSFORME http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-xhtml-author-guide/#language-attributes P3 normal --- 1 xn--mlform-iua eliotgra eliotgra mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-i18n-core xn--mlform-iua public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 64873 0 xn--mlform-iua 2012-03-01 23:12:01 +0000 Per HTML5, the @lang attribute can be used in both XHTML and HTML: "The lang attribute in no namespace may be used on any HTML element." <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/elements#attr-lang> "The term "HTML elements", when used in this specification, refers to any element in that namespace, and thus refers to both HTML and XHTML elements." <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure#html-elements> Therefore, Polyglot Markup should specify that xml:lang is optional. Aslo see: 16166#c2 64875 1 xn--mlform-iua 2012-03-01 23:14:23 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > Aslo see: 16166#c2 See Bug 16166#c2 65991 2 public-i18n-core 2012-03-23 17:32:39 +0000 I don't believe this is appropriate. See my rationale in comment 7 at https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16166 66021 3 xn--mlform-iua 2012-03-25 01:23:55 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > I don't believe this is appropriate. See my rationale in comment 7 at > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16166 I don't think your justification there is good enough. (1) The point is that if one is to make an application/xhtml+xml document, then one isn't required to use xml:lang, if all one cares about is XML-capable HTML5-parsers. And so, the question begs to be asked: Why must I, suddenly, use xml:lang, it the document is supposed to be 'polyglot'? I agree that you, in bug 16166, 7th comment, have pointed out some reasons why an author might want the document to contain xml:lang. But I see no *must* in there - it all depends on how "naked" you expect the XML parser to be. (2) Meanwhile, in 16166, you suggest that text/html parsers should start to handle xml:lang. So, if that proposal were to be accepted, how would this impact on Polyglot Markup? My presumption is that you would like to be able to produce polyglot markup which contained xml:lang, without any requirement that @lang is present. (3) HTML+RDFa 1.1 is agnostic about xml:lang versus lang http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-in-html/#additional-rdfa-processing-rules (4) RDFa Core likewise says: "In XHTML+RDFa [XHTML-RDFA], for example, the XML language attribute @xml:lang or the attribute @lang is used to add this information, whether the plain literal is designated by @content, or by the inline text of the element:" http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-core-20110331/ And so, I maintain that xml:lang should be optional. It would also be good to point out when/for what xml:lang is useful. 85735 4 eliotgra 2013-04-08 20:38:15 +0000 This ended abruptly and without conclusive proposed text. The same seems true for bug 16166, in which much relevant discussion took place. Am I to take it that Leif's final thoughts in comment 3 contain the resolution, that xml:lang should be optional? I tend toward keeping the text as it is, that polyglot markup uses both xml:lang and @lang. If you have come to consensus otherwise, however, I am willing to incorporate that. 85745 5 xn--mlform-iua 2013-04-08 21:33:37 +0000 (In reply to comment #4) Hi Eliot, consider that I have changed my mind: xml:lang should be considered <del>polyglot</del> <ins>robust</ins>. Thus, no change, basically. The thing is that xml:lang is *not* necessary in XHTML since a conforming XHTML parser will understand the @lang attribute. However, from a *robust* viewpoint, it can be defended that xml:lang should be in. Cheers!