> > ** human_result. It appears that there is at least one data element > > (human_result per Sections 2.1.1.12 and 2.1.1.13) which is intended to be a > > human readable string. Per Section 4 of RFC2277 saying “protocols that > > transfer text MUST provide for carrying information about the language of > > that text”, what is the approach prescribed by this specification? Should > > an > > xs:lang attribute be added to the human_result element? > > I'll be honest that I don't have a preference here. Someone else called this > out I believe as well. If others believe > it necessary, I will certainly add it to the document. > > [Roman] In my assessment RFC2277 requires some kind of approach to carry the > language information. It's up to > the WG, but my recommendation would be to use the built-in schema data type > of xs:lang
I'll note that 2277 goes on to say this: Note that this does NOT mean that such information must always be present; the requirement is that if the sender of information wishes to send information about the language of a text, the protocol provides a well-defined way to carry this information. In other words, we could add an optional xs:lang, which the sender could use... or not. I'll note that "not" is far more likely than otherwise, and, while I don't see an objection to providing the option, I can't imagine that it will result in any practical difference: I doubt we'll see changes in implementations to use it. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
