Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Wed, 23 August 2006 19:19 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFyFu-0003co-Uf; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:19:14 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFyFt-0003cZ-9H; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:19:13 -0400
Received: from zeke.hxr.us ([69.31.8.124] helo=zeke.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFyFm-0001dv-2b; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:19:13 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([::ffff:208.50.38.5]) (AUTH: LOGIN anewton) by zeke.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:19:01 -0400 id 015881A0.44ECAA25.00000470
Message-ID: <44ECAA1D.3090309@hxr.us>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:18:53 -0400
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03
References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07916DC2@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07916DC2@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89
Cc: Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de>, iesg@ietf.org, crisp@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org

Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> xml:lang: We didn't harp on that because tool support for it was mixed at the time.  I personally believe that it should be used today in new specs  instead of creating a new attribute to carry the same info, but I don't see the need to change an older spec if a "custom" attribute was used.  That's what I had to do in EPP,for example.

Let me get this straight.  When specifying EPP, there were XML processors 
that were not capable of properly parsing the content of an xml:lang 
attribute but were capable of parsing the content of a lang attribute?  If 
anything, this tells me that the use of xml:lang, at least in the scope of 
XSDs, should not be recommended.

-andy


_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
Crisp@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp