New draft submitted of 3066bis...

John Cowan jcowan at
Tue Nov 2 17:40:28 CET 2004

Chris Lilley scripsit:

> Right, that is my analysis also. However, it has been stated that
> RFC3066 is advisory, and you can put any string you like as a value of
> xml:lang. I think that is wrong too, and the XML spec clearly says
> either an RFC3066(or successor) value, or "".

Ah, I understand now.  The plain language of the spec is to be ignored.
"Fiddle, we know, is diddle; and diddle, we take it, is dee."
        --Swinburne (see

Winter:  MIT,                                   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,                                    jcowan at
Issue lots of Drafts.                 
So much more to understand!           
Might simplicity return?                        (A "tanka", or extended haiku)

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list