Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 8:00:00 AM, you wrote:
> I am strongly opposed to PaceSimpleLanguageTagging. I had two problems with xml:lang: One was implementation difficulty - I think that the level of language support in Atom seems a bit unbalanced. On one hand we can language tag everything anywhere - which is a good thing, but unprecedented for syndication formats; on the other hand we can only have a single title and a single alt link. Perhaps the idea is that there should be multiple feeds and language selection should be done outside Atom, eg with Accept-Language, but this doesn't seem to fit well with "xml:lang everywhere", as there isn't necessarily a language for a feed - only for the components of it. Anyway, I've heard enough arguments in favour of xml:lang that I'll accept that it is a necessary cost. My other issue was that we need to state which core elements are language sensitive and which are language neutral, otherwise implementors will guess and language tags will get lost. We also need to state what happens to extensions. I'd suggest that if we go with PaceExtensionConstruct, then Simple Extension constructs are language sensitive (although I really don't mind them being language neutral either - I'm not convinced either way). Structured Language constructs MAY be language sensitive (so if you don't know how to interpret them specifically, then you MUST preserve the language tag). So I am now -0.5 to PaceSimpleLanguageTagging, but I think that there are still some issues, so I think we need another Pace that makes it clear what xml:lang applies to. BTW: When no xml:lang is in context, is the default language be language neutral (ie: xml:lang=""), or is it determined by the envelope, eg: a HTTP Content-Language header? -- Dave
