no linguistic content tag (was RE: Mandarin Chinese,
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed Jun 15 22:08:01 CEST 2005
Addison Phillips scripsit:
> I'm not sure I like the idea. The empty tag, while not quite the
> same level of declaration, implies this well-enough. We already have
> troublesome codes like MUL and UND. A "NOT" code would represent Yet
> Another Special Code. I like the empty tag much more for a situation
> like this.
The empty string is not actually a valid tag in RFC 3066. It is a legal
value for xml:lang, but with different semantics: it means that no declaration
is being made about the language of an element. So we have three related
xml:lang="": may or may not be linguistic content
xml:lang="und": definitely linguistic content, language unknown
xml:lang="xnl" (proposed): non-linguistic content
> "Information items" that contain natural language generally
> should be separate from non-language bearing items.
See my previous posting. I think the case of instrumental-music recordings
is particularly compelling.
Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.
--Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God"
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
More information about the Ietf-languages