[tei-council] [Fwd: xml:lang attribute and P5 RNG schemas]

[Christian Wittern]

Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:

> Lou Burnard wrote:
>
>>
>> I think we ought to try to decide
>> (a) whether  P5 should say that xml:lang *replaces* lang or may be 
>> used as an alternative
>
> did the WG really not make a recommendation on this?

My memory says the WG was non-commital and thought this should be
decided by the council (though maybe based on some material provided
by the WG).  The draft text decidedly leaves open, but tacitly assumes
some kind of alignment with xml:lang by using the same mechanism for
constructing the attribute value for *:lang.

>
>> (b) whether the declared value of xml:lang should be IDREF or CDATA
>>
> I'd say it should be datatype.Key, ie  CDATA, with the recommendation
> "It is expected that the set of possible values will
> be defined in the document header"

Which is a nightmare for document interchange.  Going with xml:lang,
but with a reference to <language> would give you essentially the
same, but those who understand xml:lang could proceed right away.

My vote is as follows:

xml:lang
value: formally CDATA, but in fact  as spelled out in the draft [can this be formally checked?]


Christian

-- 

 Christian Wittern 
 Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University
 47 Higashiogura-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8265, JAPAN