Dear folks,

Regarding my previous post about EAC-CPF and @xml:lang, I have only exchanged personal emails with a few colleagues who work on EAD3. They echo more or less my concerns, as they refer to the alignment with EAD3 which does not use @xml:lang and instead use @lang as a local attribute. 
This is exactly what I think for EAC-CPF too. In my opinion, the easiest and best solution would be to use @langaugeCode (ISO639-2 recommended) for all levels, if @xml:lang is not a prerequisite. 

If this is a kind of change EAC-CPF will make, it would be highly appreciated if somebody (especially from the EAC-CPF committee) to verify it. Personally I think it best if the change will be announced asap, as we can avoid producing more EAC-CPF in a different way (this is very true for our project in Europe).

Thanks again, and look forward to hearing from you. 

All the best,
*************************************************
Go Sugimoto
APEx project / National Archives of the Netherlands
[log in to unmask]  

APEx project http://www.apex-project.eu   
Archives Portal Europe http://www.archivesportaleurope.net      
*************************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of EAD automatic digest system
Sent: vrijdag 5 december 2014 6:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: EAD Digest - 2 Dec 2014 to 4 Dec 2014 (#2014-119)

There is 1 message totalling 34 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. EAC-CPF and xml:lang

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 4 Dec 2014 13:59:19 +0000
From:    Go Sugimoto <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: EAC-CPF and xml:lang

Dear colleagues,

I have a question for EAC-CPF.
I am really new here, so sorry if my question is already discussed, or my i= nformation is not correct etc, please correct me.=20

I am in the standard group in APEx project and heard from my colleagues tha= t the new version of EAC-CPF will deploy ISO639-2 for @xml:lang. Is it true= ? If so, what is the reason behind it?

I understand that some people (including APEx) have talked about the proble= m of inconsistency between @xml:lang (IANA) and @languageCode (ISO639-2), a= nd I agree to be consistent one way or the other. But, @xml:lang is an exte= rnal attribute from W3C, and it should be IANA compliant for global interop= erability, in my opinion. If ISO639-2 is used, it allows @xml:lang=3Deng, w= hich I think strange (normally @xml:lang=3Den). I am not arguing what is ne= eded for archives (availability of languages etc), but only talking about t= he syntax for this particular question.

Can somebody clarify the latest situation of the two attributes? Thank you.

Best Regards,
Go Sugimoto
The National Archives of The Netherlands, APEx project

------------------------------

End of EAD Digest - 2 Dec 2014 to 4 Dec 2014 (#2014-119)
********************************************************