Andy Powell wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, Gorissen,Pierre P.J.B. wrote:
>
>
>>It looks like the strict check by XMLSpy is causing more problems related to the <language></language> element.
>>I had a look at the banana example (http://www.rdn.ac.uk/resourcefinder/?query=banana) and the first four entries there fail to validate in XMLSpy:
>>
>>http://www.rdn.ac.uk/record/lom/oai:rdn:agrifor:2011603
>>http://www.rdn.ac.uk/record/lom/oai:rdn:agrifor:2024084
>>http://www.rdn.ac.uk/record/lom/oai:rdn:agrifor:2011641
>>http://www.rdn.ac.uk/record/lom/oai:rdn:agrifor:2014720
>>
>>This is because <language>eng</language> is used in the records instead
>>of <language>en</language> or <language>en-UK</language>
>
>
> Hmmm... that is a slight pain. The current RFC for language tags is
> RFC-3066
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
>
> which allows both 2 and 3 letter language codes. This is what Dublin Core
> now suggests using and is what I recommend in the RDN/LTSN application
> profile. Unfortunately XML doesn't seem to have caught up with this :-(
>
Andy, RFC 3066, section 2.3 "Choice of language tag", says
2. When a language has both an ISO 639-1 2-character code and an ISO
639-2 3-character code, you MUST use the tag derived from the ISO
639-1 2-character code.
Wouldn't this justify the XML usage?
Phil.
--
Phil Barker Learning Technology Adviser
ICBL, School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS
Tel: 0131 451 3278 Fax: 0131 451 3327
Web: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/
|