Re: [office] xml:lang settings. Confused.

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 15/06/07, Eike Rathke <erack@sun.com> wrote:

> > I'm assuming for mixed docs, somewhere within the body the change in
> > language
> > would be signalled by an xml:lang attribute on the paragraph?
>
> Only if it differs from the inherited setting. By using fo:* attributes
> though, not xml:lang. However, a paragraph style may have one Western,
> CJK and CTL language assigned. These are not repeated when script types
> change.

I'm OK with that, though why use fo: rather than xml:lang seems
a bit NIH?



>
> > My question related to (mainly) single language documents,
> > where I need the primary language of the document.
>
> The primary aka default language should be the <dc:language> element of
> <office-meta-data.> See "3.1.15 Language".

Which disagrees with what previous responses on this thread say!
It is quite clear though.

However, that may get
> overridden at any time any place, even for the entire document.
inherited from an ancestor element. That would align with xml.



>
> > Just wondered why xml:lang or dc:language
> > isn't used in ODF.
>
> I wish xml:lang was used, would had made the latest adaption to be able
> to support RFC 4646 moot, as xml:lang already says "The values of the
> attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags
> for the Identification of Languages, or its successor". Which RFC 4646
> is.
>
> Does anyone happen to know why xml:lang exactly was not used?


Even stronger, please can we change to xml:lang then standard XML
processors can do what they should do?

>
>
> > I'm curious. When I initially open a document authored in Japanese or
> > Chinese,
> > how would I know whether to look at style:language-asian or fo:language?
>
> I guess you don't without actually looking at the script type of the
> textual content.

Which, IMHO, is a big hole in the ODF spec.



>
> > I guess that defines what I meant by 'primary language' of the document?
>
> The <dc:language> element may give a hint what might be the "primary
> language";

Give a hint? Surely the spec needs to be stronger, and explicit in how
the default language is obtained.


>however, if overridden by character attributes it may as well
> be useless. Independent of whether a fo:language-asian is present
> additionally to fo:language or not.

I can't respond through knowledge to that one. I certainly object
to basing text string language on character attributes though.
That sounds quite wrong.


An I18N mess?


How to get this on the agenda for  1.2?

regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk