Wednesday, March 15, 2006, 3:21:08 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
> For atom:uri and atom:email at least, not having xml:lang may > be seen as a feature. The spec says that "Any element defined by this specification MAY have an xml:lang attribute". We chose to limit the effects of xml:lang, rather than the occurrence of it. Eg: atom:published is allowed xml:lang, even though it is meaningless. The spec includes a sentence about element xxx being "Language-Sensitive" when we consider the language to be relevant. The idea is, if a feed reading framework such as Microsoft's Windows/IE7 feed platform doesn't preserve xml:lang on elements that aren't "Language-Sensitive", then they are doing nothing wrong. Same for, eg: an Atom publishing server backed by a legacy CMS. > While these often contain pieces from one language or another, they > are not really in a language. I agree. Note that this is the case in Atom, because those two elements are not "Language-Sensitive". Also note, that atom:uri is an IRI-reference, so it is affected by any xml:base attributes on that element. And that atomCommonAttributes also covers extension attributes, which are also allowed anywhere. They are "undefined", which *I* think means that implementations need not feel bad about dropping them on the floor. The official meaning is, er, undefined. -- Dave
