New draft submitted of 3066bis...

[John Cowan]

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 http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem2087.html)

-- 
Winter:  MIT,                                   John Cowan
Keio, INRIA,                                    jcowan at reutershealth.com
Issue lots of Drafts.                           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand!                     http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return?                        (A "tanka", or extended haiku)