On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Robin Berjon <ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > On Nov 27, 2009, at 20:55 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Cyril Concolato >> <cyril.concol...@enst.fr> wrote: >>> I'm trying to implement the element-based localization and I found the spec >>> unclear with regards to the inheritance of th xml:lang attribute and I would >>> like to propose some improved text. >>> First, this attribute is listed as an optional attribute of the widget >>> element but the widget element is not localizable, so one does not >>> understand why. >> >> D'oh! that should be a "localizable: yes". Thankfully, that's there >> for author clarification. > > Really? I wouldn't have thought so. There's a difference between "you can > have xml:lang there" and "it is meaningful to have xml:lang there (or on its > ancestors)". You can have xml:lang on widget, but the widget element cannot > really be localised (you can't have two, choosing between them depending on > locale). It's not a huge difference, but putting "localisable: yes" on widget > would confuse me. >
Agreed. >> I've added this to the editor's draft: >> >> "As part of their definition, the XML elements of the configuration >> document are marked as being localizable via xml:lang with either the >> word "yes" or "no". An author can use the xml:lang attribute on any >> XML element, including any element in the widget namespace. During >> Step 7, the user agent will apply the standardized behavior of >> xml:lang specified in the [XML] specification (i.e. inheritance and >> propagation of the xml:lang attribute will occur on child elements on >> which it was not explicitly used - see example below to see how this >> inheritance and propagation works). Regardless of whether xml:lang was >> inherited or explicitly used in an element, a user agent will only use >> the value of an xml:lang attributes for the purpose of element-based >> localization in Step 7 when that element was explicitly marked with >> the text "Localizable via xml:lang: Yes" as part of that elements >> definition." >> >> WDYT? > > I think that this is even more confused than the original :) To clarify, I > think you need to make the same distinction I made above re "can have > xml:lang" and "supports being localised". Otherwise you get sentences like > "elements of the configuration document are marked as being localizable via > xml:lang with either the word "yes" or "no". An author can use the xml:lang > attribute on any XML element", to which I can only reply "ebbeh?". > > How about: > > """ > The xml:lang attribute can be used on any element in order to indicate which > language is used in the content and attribute values of that element. Its > value is inherited, such that if an element has an xml:lang attribute, all of > its descendants are considered to be in that language as well, unless they > specify their own xml:lang attribute. Note that an element can indicate that > it is in no specific language by setting xml:lang to the empty string, > irrespective of whether any of its ancestors has an xml:lang attribute. > > Some of the elements in the widgets namespace are defined to be localisable. > This means that they will be processed in a specific manner if they have an > xml:lang value (directly or through inheritance), as described in detail in > Step 7. > """ > > WDYT? I *really* like it; you never fail to impress Mr Berjon :) ... but the first para should just be a "Note:" (we don't want to have that in as normative text because it describes behavior specified in the XML spec... hence, I would add "as specified in [XML], bla bla bla"). The second paragraph can serve as a normative definition to which all "localizable via xml:lang" link to. Can you live with that? If you can, I have added the above to the spec. With that, we are ready to go to CR so please give me your consent. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
