RE: [dita] Clarification needed on whether xml:lang is required

["Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>]

Concur on both points. This might have been written before the ATC got
started.  

The attribute description at 3.4.1.6 "localization-atts attribute group"
punts to the XML spec. The XML spec doesn't talk about this as either
advice or requirement. It does give some interesting examples that DITA
specializers could consider, and that the ATC might elaborate.

Elsewhere in 2.1.3.9.1 "The @xml:lang attribute" we say that the top
element "should" set this attribute, and that applications "should"
ensure that this is done. Should we beef this up, Gershon? I think we
punted the "must" talk to the ATC.

	/B

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) 
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 1:54 PM
> To: Su-Laine Yeo; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Clarification needed on whether xml:lang 
> is required
> 
> I don't see any point (or value) in the entire paragraph. I 
> think we can delete the whole paragraph. (My personal opinion 
> is that using markup to identify language is not strongly 
> recommended, *it's a requirement!*)
> 
> Cheers,
> Gershon
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Su-Laine Yeo [mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 3:40 AM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Clarification needed on whether xml:lang 
> is required
> 
> I think this part of page 78 could be improved too:
> 
> "Using markup to identify language is strongly recommended to 
> make the document as portable as possible. The marked-up 
> document can be read and understood by humans. Because the 
> boundaries of each language are clear, it is much easier for 
> the author to update the document."
> 
> If the second and third sentences are currently saying 
> anything, they aren't providing any rationale in support of 
> these assertions. I think we should remove these sentences 
> unless someone can suggest how to clarify them.
> 
> Su-Laine
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Su-Laine Yeo
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 5:27 PM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Clarification needed on whether xml:lang 
> is required
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I took an action item to propose clearer wording for the 
> spec. Here is my attempt:
> 
> Page 78 of the CD02 draft spec for DITA 1.2 says:
> 
> "Applications should ensure that every highest level topic 
> element explicitly assigns the @xml:lang attribute. Authors 
> are urged to set the @xml:lang attribute in the source 
> language so that the translator may change it in the target 
> language. Because some translation software does not permite 
> translators to add elements, the absence of the @xml:lang 
> element from the source language may result in higher 
> administrative costs for translation."
> 
> I propose replacing this with:
> 
> "The @xml:lang attribute should be set explicitly at the root 
> of each top-level topic, as DITA processors are not required 
> to support any other way for users to specify the language of 
> topic content. To facilitate the translation process, use of 
> the xml:lang attribute is recommended even if the topic is in 
> the same language as the processor default, because some 
> translation software makes it easier to change an existing 
> attribute value than to add a new one."
> 
> I suppose that as a spec is not a user guide, we could even 
> do without the second sentence, but I think it's useful.
> 
> Su-Laine
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Su-Laine Yeo [mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:42 PM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita] Clarification needed on whether xml:lang is required
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Page 78 of the CD02 draft spec for DITA 1.2 says, 
> "Applications should ensure that every highest level topic 
> element explicitly assigns the @xml:lang attribute."
> 
> An application could ensure that xml:lang attribute is 
> explicitly assigned, however this would make it out of 
> compliance with the language reference which says that 
> xml:lang is not a required attribute for topics. Currently 
> the spec seems to be saying "applications should treat 
> xml:lang as being required" in one place, and "applications 
> should treat xml:lang as being not required" in another place. 
> 
> Can we remove this sentence from page 78 to remove the 
> contradiction? I think our intention to encourage use of 
> xml:lang is fulfilled in the next sentence which says, 
> "Authors are urged to set the @xml:lang attribute in the 
> source language so that the translator may change it in the 
> target language." Applications can provide defaults and 
> warnings to make it easier for authors to remember to do this.
> 
> 
> Su-Laine
> 
> Su-Laine Yeo
> Solutions Consultant
> JustSystems Canada, Inc.
> Office: 778-327-6356
> syeo@justsystems.com
> www.justsystems.com
> XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS 
> TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your 
> TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS 
> TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your 
> TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
>