2576 2005-12-10 01:18:40 +0000 Clarify relation of language type to xml:lang 2008-01-30 15:58:23 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 unspecified PC Linux CLOSED FIXED important, work, i18n cluster resolved P2 normal --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7377 0 cmsmcq 2005-12-10 01:18:42 +0000 In a comment of August 2004 [1], Paul Biron suggests a correction to the description of the language type, to make it accept the empty string, in the same way that the xml:lang attribute can have the empty string as a value (with the meaning: any language information given for parents does not necessarily apply here). He also suggests ensuring that xsd:language is aligned with RFC 3066 bis. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2004JulSep/0086.html In February 2005 ([2], member-only link), the WG appears to have been persuaded that a correction should be issued. [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Feb/0096.html I believe that since that time, a contrary view has gained ground, which holds that xml:lang should simply be defined as a union of xsd:language and a string-based type with a single enumerated value, namely the empty string. I find that approach satisfactory, myself. But the comment from Paul Biron, and the analogous comment from the SVG working group, suggest that even if we don't change xsd:language, an explanatory note would be useful. On the empty string issue, the WG needs to decide whether (a) to issue a correction to 1.0, including the empty string in the lexical and value spaces of xsd:language, (b) to do nothing, or (c) add a note observing that xml:lang and any construct intended to behave like it should be defined as a union of xsd:language and the empty string. On the 3066bis issue, the WG needs to decide whether to align xsd:language in XSD 1.0 with 3066bis, or allow our language type and the language codes specified by the IETF to go out of alignment with each other. 18100 1 cmsmcq 2007-12-14 23:12:57 +0000 The Working Group discussed this issue today (14 December 2007) and agreed that we do not want to change the xsd:language type to allow the empty string as a value, and that we do want to add a note pointing out that xml:lang does allow empty strings and thus needs a type like the one given in the schema document at http://www.w3.org/2001/xml.xsd (a union of xsd:language and an enumerated type with one value: the empty string). I'm marking the issue as 'decided', since the WG did not wish to review a wording proposal, and 'needsDrafting'. 18642 2 cmsmcq 2008-01-30 15:56:41 +0000 The note agreed upon on 14 December has been integrated into the status quo text. So I'm marking this resolved. 18643 3 cmsmcq 2008-01-30 15:58:23 +0000 As the originator of record, I note my agreement with the disposition of this issue and CLOSE it accordingly. Since in some sense it reflects a concern raised by Paul Biron in 2004, I also note that Paul was present on the call that agreed on the disposition and that I therefore presume him to be content with it.