[Ltru] RE: "mis" update review request

[Peter Constable]

From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc at hpl.hp.com]

> Peter Constable wrote:
>> Does that apply to its use in xml:lang="" too? That's different from
>> omitting xml:lang...

I didn't write all the stuff you quoted as being from me; *you* wrote it.


> I don't think xml:lang="" should be given any semantics other than a
> processing one

My statement was that "" means 'no information'. I think we're saying the same thing.


> On the wider topic, I wonder if there is a compromise comment that can
> be added to the mis definition, that suggests that, when tagging, other
> more specific correct tags should be used in preference, but when
> reading, no such assumption can be made, due to the inherent instability
> of such usage. This would not invalidate any prior use, but would
> suggest that the more conservative approach was preferred.

Users need to understand that mis is inherently unstable wrt semantics.



Peter