f



XHTML 1.1 spec: lang and xml:lang

Hello,

I've looked at the latest XHTML spec from 2009-05-07. Referring to

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/abstract_modules.html#s_commonatts

In the I18N module, there are only two attributes listed: dir and
xml:lang. The note in the last paragraph says: "Finally, note that the
I18N collection only contains the xml:lang attribute unless the Bi-
directional Text Module module is selected." This is fine, but...

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html

says (last paragraph):

"This specification also adds the lang attribute to the I18N attribute
collection as defined in [XHTMLMOD]. The lang attribute is defined in
[HTML4]. When this attribute and the xml:lang are specified on the
same element, the xml:lang takes precedence. When both lang and
xml:lang are specified on the same element, they SHOULD have the same
value."

Is the 'lang' attribute deprecated? If it is not, it should be in the
I18N module as well. If it *is* deprecated,

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html

is wrong, isn't it?

Karsten
0
Karsten
5/11/2009 7:29:20 AM
comp.authoring.html 7078 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

1 Replies
1057 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 7

Karsten Wutzke wrote:

> I've looked at the latest XHTML spec from 2009-05-07.

[snip]

> Is the 'lang' attribute deprecated? If it is not, it should be in the
> I18N module as well. If it *is* deprecated,
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/doctype.html
> 
> is wrong, isn't it?

Well the latest "spec" so far is a "Proposed Edited Recommendation" that 
in its introduction explicitly says (it) "integrates the lang attribute 
to increase compatibility with User Agents and Assistive Technologies". 
That way I don't believe the presence of the lang attribute is an error, 
it is a deliberate change. Whether or not they intend to change the 
module as well I don't know. You could join the relevant W3C mailing 
list mentioned in the recommendation.
-- 

	Martin Honnen
	http://msmvps.com/blogs/martin_honnen/
0
Martin
5/11/2009 11:39:38 AM
Reply: