[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] xml:lang settings. Confused.
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]