Hi Yves; On 25 January, you were heard to say: >I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the level and it would be redundand. But my memory is fuzzy on that topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this. I suggest that the name for the element should be lengthened to something like 'xml:source-lang' or 'xml:target-lang' [or more appropriately 'xml:target-lang-01'], to avoid the redundancy problem. Regards, David L ************************************************************
ysavourel@translate.com wrote on 1/25/02 10:55:45 PM ************************************************************ >> It is strongly recommended to use >> xml:lang for <source> and <target> as well, so any XML tools (not just >> XLIFF tools) can be language-aware. > >Why not make this required? Are there any applications that would be >harmed by always having an xml:lang attribute specified on source/target >elements? I argue that the converse is true and so would like to see >xml:lang be a required attribute. I think we didn't make required because you could avoid to have it for one of the two language in the document by specifying the xml:lang at the <xliff> level and it would be redundand. But my memory is fuzzy on that topic. Other may recall the discussion we had on this. -yves ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <
http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Get your free e-mail account at
http://www.ftnetwork.com Visit the web site of the Financial Times at
http://www.ft.com