>If it's not used, it takes no space. (Edward seems to agree that some >people want to use it, however.) Clients will need to be able to deal >with these tags anyway; they need to be able to handle text containing >them sanely.
It takes up space and developer time in the clients. It's easy to end up with a spec that only gets partially implemented because it's so big. >The HTML "lang" tag is used and implemented. This is much lighter than >that, of course, and has similar uses. The HTML "lang" tag is in an enviroment with a lot more control of how stuff is displayed. Most Ogg implementors are just going to toss the string to an OS/toolkit standard text display protocol. >Some people apparently think there's a need (or at least, in the reverse). >My preference, as a native speaker of neither of these languages, would be >to display Japanese with a Japanese font and Chinese with a Chinese >font, and I would be surprised if there were very few people with this >preference. I'd prefer my KISS CD's to be displayed in a KISS font, too. That doesn't neccessarily mean that it's feasible, or worthwhile to be put in a spec. -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
