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

Re: <sort lang="sv"/> in Saxon

Subject: Re: <sort lang="sv"/> in Saxon
From: Joerg Pietschmann <joerg.pietschmann@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:49:43 +0200
xml lang it lang it
Hi Jeni,
thanks for the explanations! If your book is full of this kind
of stuff, and no doubt it is, it's a *must have*!

However, maybe i'm feeling overly nitpicky today...
> The XSLT Rec specifically states:
>   lang specifies the language of the sort keys; it has the same range
>   of values as xml:lang [XML]; if no lang value is specified, the
>   language should be determined from the system environment
> So the local collating sequence should be used if no lang attribute is
> specified.

Actually, it is not explicitely mentioned that the language determines
the collating sequence. Furthermore, the concept of "local collating
sequence" is, without a reference to a defining standard, ill defined.
After all, what's "local": The machine default setting, if such a thing
even exists, a user dependent environment, an environment setup
specifically for a certain transformation run?
I'd rather like to have the wording "The processor should document
how it obtains a language in absence of an explicit specified value."
or something like that. At least it's not as fuzzy as "get it from the
environment".

> The fact is that sorting according to different languages isn't
> straight-forward.
Oh well!
Just another note: practically every reasonable built up environment
knows how to sort according to the POSIX LANG=C locale. But there is
no standardized way to tell a processor to use it (unless i missed
the IANA code for it). Except by default, of course. Hmm.

> ... it's a
> massive burden to expect every processor to support *every* language.
Yes, it's a pity that despite all the work already done most
environments are still lacking many important capabilities.

> > ...rationale for inventing the xsl:lang attribute
> *Probably* it's to do with the fact that xml:lang is designed to
> indicate the language used by the element content/attribute values on
> an element. xsl:sort doesn't have any content;
Great explanation, i thought "if there is no content, why does the
distinction matter?" but i missed the attributes!

> if you used xml:lang it would be to do things like:
[heretic example snipped]
Is there a way to unwrite this? Or at least to embargo it for french
users :-), for fear someone thinks it's actually a good idea to have
keywords to be localized (see the extensive but totally pointless
discussion in XSchema whether for example floating point numbers
should be accepted in their localized form).

> (xsl:)lang, on the other hand, is indicating the language of the sort
> values, which is a uniquely XSLT concept.
Agreed. But then, as we are already running a big schema impact
discussion, how does this kind of language specification relate to
schema specified datatypes?

Regards
J.Pietschmann

 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.