Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 5:30:51 AM, you wrote:
> At 10:00 05/01/25, Sascha Carlin wrote: >> >>Tim Bray wrote: >>> Not yet taken up by the WG, depends on the discussion that comes with > this call. Same rules as all the others: there has to be a positive WG > consensus that each adds to the base specification. -Tim >> >>+1, at least for atom:language inside the header. For elements, well, > there _are_ use cases for elements in different languages, so, since it is > optional, +1 again. > -1, or better, -2. Inventing things like atom:language when there > is xml:lang is just completely useless and superfluous. Well, it was more like a blatantly re-badged dc:language than an invention, but I'll agree that it probably isn't the best solution. I think we should instead decide what core elements are affected by xml:lang, and whether extensions are affected. -- Dave
