[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated codes [long

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>, unicode@u...
• Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:03:31 -0400

Mike Brown wrote:

>
> XML 1.0 says that xml:lang attributes must match production 33 for
> well-formedness -- on that all seem to agree. But XML 1.0's normative
> reference to RFC 1766 and the language of that RFC together *could* imply
> that the 2-letter language code portion of xml:lang values must
> not only be
> 2 ASCII characters, but must also match ISO 639 2-letter language codes in
> order to be valid.

Actually production [34] states that the LangCode is one of:

	ISO639Code | IanaCode | UserCode

>
> There still remains the unclear issue of whether xml:lang validity really
> should correlate to strict RFC 1766 conformance, down to the selection of
> language codes from ISO 639-1.

You can use IanaCode (prefixed with 'i' | 'I') or UserCode (prefixed with
'x' | 'X'), neither of which have a 2 character limit. All options are
valid.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

• References:
  • Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated codes [l ong]
    • From: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?
• Next by Date: RE: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?
• Previous by thread: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated codes [l ong]
• Next by thread: RE: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread