* Martin Duerst wrote: > >> Not yet taken up by the WG, depends on the discussion that comes with >this call. Same rules as all the others: there has to be a positive WG >consensus that each adds to the base specification. -Tim > > > >+1, at least for atom:language inside the header. For elements, well, >there _are_ use cases for elements in different languages, so, since it is >optional, +1 again. > >-1, or better, -2. Inventing things like atom:language when there >is xml:lang is just completely useless and superfluous.
Could you clarify how xml:lang solves the problems stated in the Pace? The alternatives to the Pace would seem to be either restrict xml:lang to specific elements or implementations that lose xml:lang information or, in an authoring scenario, do not allow to use it -- i.e., ignoring the problem in the specification. Neither of which is really helped by xml:lang, so your comment seems a bit weird. -- Bj�rn H�hrmann � mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] � http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 � Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 � http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim � PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 � http://www.websitedev.de/
