Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:51:31 -0400

Yes, there were first generation schema tools that had problems.  I don't think that's the case now, though.

-Scott-

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 23, 2006 03:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc:	Marcos Sanz/Denic; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> xml:lang: We didn't harp on that because tool support for it was mixed at the time.  I personally believe that it should be used today in new specs  instead of creating a new attribute to carry the same info, but I don't see the need to change an older spec if a "custom" attribute was used.  That's what I had to do in EPP,for example.

Let me get this straight.  When specifying EPP, there were XML processors 
that were not capable of properly parsing the content of an xml:lang 
attribute but were capable of parsing the content of a lang attribute?  If 
anything, this tells me that the use of xml:lang, at least in the scope of 
XSDs, should not be recommended.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp