[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- To: Mike Brown <mbrown@corp.webb.net>, unicode@unicode.org
- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:03:31 -0400
Mike Brown wrote:
>
> XML 1.0 says that xml:lang attributes must match production 33 for
> well-formedness -- on that all seem to agree. But XML 1.0's normative
> reference to RFC 1766 and the language of that RFC together *could* imply
> that the 2-letter language code portion of xml:lang values must
> not only be
> 2 ASCII characters, but must also match ISO 639 2-letter language codes in
> order to be valid.
Actually production [34] states that the LangCode is one of:
ISO639Code | IanaCode | UserCode
>
> There still remains the unclear issue of whether xml:lang validity really
> should correlate to strict RFC 1766 conformance, down to the selection of
> language codes from ISO 639-1.
You can use IanaCode (prefixed with 'i' | 'I') or UserCode (prefixed with
'x' | 'X'), neither of which have a 2 character limit. All options are
valid.
Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org
|
