Internationalization and naming

[Andrew Layman]

Thanks.  One of the intentions of XML-Data was to make aliases for names
explicit.  See http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/NOTE-XML-data-0105/#Aliases

Here is text from the proposal:

ElementTypes can be know be different names in different languages or
domains. The equivalence of several names is effected by the sameAs
attribute, as in 

<elementTypeEquivalent id="livre" type="#Book"/>
<elementTypeEquivalent id="auteur" type="#author"/>


-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl at simonstl.com]
Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 10:43 AM
To: XML-Dev Mailing list
Subject: Internationalization and naming


While writing a blip about XML's support for multiple languages (Unicode,
xml:lang, etc.), it occurred to me that XML still has a ways to go toward
removing the language barriers with regard to element and attribute names. 

HTML imposed an element vocabulary roughly based on English upon document
authors the world over, and not everyone was especially thrilled about it.
XML avoids this issue - you can name your elements and attributes whatever
you like - but it seems likely to crop up again any time people and
organizations go to build document standards using XML.  

Will English vocabularies be used, or will other languages be used?  In the
current XML 1.0 spec, validation requires exact matching of tag names, and
as far as I can tell, there isn't any discussion of validating a
transformed document (via XSL or whatever) that converts documents using
French or Chinese element/attribute names to English (or whatever the
standard uses.)

This seems like something that the next generation of schemas could address
neatly, by providing room for something like a translation table,
identifying elements and their 'standard' equivalents.  This could open up
validation considerably, and possibly make it a lot easier to get buy-in
from user communities that perhaps have no input toward the standards or
their choice of language.

These translations could, of course, take place elsewhere in the process
(editing tools, XSL, etc.), but it seems like addressing it where it
matters - the validation process - is a cleaner solution, at least to me.
(A clearer model for transformation and validation might help as well, if
this proposal is too radical.)

Simon St.Laurent
XML: A Primer / Cookies
Sharing Bandwidth 
Building XML Applications (February)
http://www.simonstl.com

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following
message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)