• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>, "xml-dev@x..." <xml-dev@x...>
• Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:07:24 -0400

Mike Brown wrote:

> 3. Optionally enforced rules that are neither well-formedness nor validity
> constraints, but that satisfy certain intentions, so that document authors
> can produce "proper" XML. Rules of this type which are broken do not change
> a document's  XML 1.0 conformance status.
> 
> The statement that xml:lang values are RFC 1766 (and successors) language
> identifiers falls under number 3. (correct?)

I think so, yes.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• References:
  • RE: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated code s
    • From: Mike Brown <mbrown@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?
• Next by Date: Re: Does DTD validation work with namespaces?
• Previous by thread: RE: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated code s
• Next by thread: Complete XSLT Reference and interactive XSLT and XPath trainingprograms at Zvon
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread