On draft-phillips-langtags-01

Jeremy Carroll jjc at hplb.hpl.hp.com
Wed Mar 10 11:51:08 CET 2004

Michael Everson wrote:

> And what do you mean, script isn't a separate tag? That's what ISO 15924 
> is for.

I am principally coming from the web end (actually semantic web)

so my interest in this script issue is whether I can or cannot say

<span xml:lang="und-latn">shopping</span>

It is clear that I should not say
<span xml:lang="und">shopping</span>
since I can say
<span xml:lang="">shopping</span>
however there is no syntax equivalent to
<span xml:lang="-latn">shopping</span>

I clearly could define a new xml attribute that used the script codes only, 
  but given that xml:lang is defined in terms of 'RFC 1766 or its 
successors',  it is helpful if RFC 3066bis is clear as to whether und-latn 
is a bona fide tag or not. The current text has a SHOULD NOT with a let out 
clause there appears to cover this case. In my view whether the let out 
clause does or does not apply to this case should be clarified.
Addison appeared to think it was  bad idea, personally I have no opinion, 
but if it is a bad idea, it would be clearer to say so.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list