Eric Scheid wrote:
On 30/6/06 1:34 AM, "Bill de hÓra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which are clients supposed to respect in a conflict, the
Content-Language header or the xml:lang, ie, does XML On The Web Failing
Miserably, Utterly, And Completely extend to Content-Language+xml:lang?
xml:lang,
On 30/6/06 1:34 AM, "Bill de hÓra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which are clients supposed to respect in a conflict, the
> Content-Language header or the xml:lang, ie, does XML On The Web Failing
> Miserably, Utterly, And Completely extend to Content-Language+xml:lang?
xml:lang, if you think of
Andreas Sewe wrote:
Well, the subject says it all; here they are:
- It were nice if the example in 7.1 would include @xml:lang, since both
workspace/@title and collection/@title are Language-Sensitive. Granted,
there might be a Content-Language response header (not shown) to do the
job, bu
Well, the subject says it all; here they are:
- It were nice if the example in 7.1 would include @xml:lang, since both
workspace/@title and collection/@title are Language-Sensitive.
Granted, there might be a Content-Language response header (not shown)
to do the job, but IMHO the example wou
