> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n > guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts.... my bad. > However, Addison Phillips, the > Chair of i18n core, said the following in the formal feedback > representing the i18n WG's LC comments for the spec [1]: > > "Section 7.4 (Widget) The various language bearing elements such as > <name>, <description>, etc. are of the zero-or-one type. However, it > is typically better to allow any number of these elements to occur, > provided that none share the same xml:lang. This allows for > localization (which is part of the point in allowing xml:lang on the > element)." > > So we have been blessed by them to do this... umm.... this somewhat > questionable, yet problem solving thing :) > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0259.html That's interesting, because xml:lang seems pretty redundant otherwise! -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
