ISSUE-155: [Bug 16520] Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang [HTML+RDFa]

[Bug 16520] Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang [HTML+RDFa]

Raised by:
Richard Ishida
Opened on:

Raised by: Leif Halvard Silli

The HTML+RDFa spec says:

]] If an author is editing an HTML fragment and is unsure of the final
encapsulating MIME type for their markup, it is suggested that the author
specify both lang and xml:lang [[

NIT: "If an author is [snip] for their markup".
Correct: "If an author is [snip] for his/her markup".

ISSUE: The advice proliferate the belief that XML mime types *need* xml:lang.
But it is only if they don't understand XHTML that they *need* xml:lang. They
might very well not understand XHTML. But is that related to the MIME type?

The only use case I have heard for xml:lang is XML authoring tools - thus, not
exactly "the final encapsulating MIME type". XML parsers of the Web browser
kind (IE/Webkit/Opera/Gecko) do understand the @lang attribute. (Though there
might be legacy versions which don't.) And e.g. the XHTML+RDFa DOCTYPE supports
both @lang and @xml:lang.

Are there any *real* reasons for using both attributes - unrelated to authors'
fears and feelings? Such as legacy RDFa parsers? Or specific XML authoring
tools? Or specific consumers?
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. I18N-ISSUE-155: [Bug 16520] New: Don't indicate that XML MIME types *requires* xml:lang [Adhoc-HTML] (from on 2012-03-26)

Related notes:

No additional notes.

Display change log ATOM feed

Addison Phillips <>, Chair, Richard Ishida <>, Bert Bos <>, Fuqiao Xue <>, Atsushi Shimono <>, Staff Contacts
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <>.
$Id: 155.html,v 1.1 2023/07/19 12:01:59 carcone Exp $