Print

Print


Ack, speaking of not realizing things, I thought Internet language
specifications were based on ISO 639-1 with an optional country code
(e.g. en-US). Checking RFC 3066, I see this is not the case; xml:lang
can be used for two-letter or three-letter language codes and more:
""
   - All 2-letter subtags are interpreted according to assignments found
     in ISO standard 639, "Code for the representation of names of
     languages" [ISO 639], or assignments subsequently made by the ISO
     639 part 1 maintenance agency or governing standardization bodies.
     (Note: A revision is underway, and is expected to be released as
     ISO 639-1:2000)

   - All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to assignments found
     in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the representation of names of
     languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments
     subsequently made by the ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or
     governing standardization bodies.

   - The value "i" is reserved for IANA-defined registrations

   - The value "x" is reserved for private use.  Subtags of "x" shall
     not be registered by the IANA.

   - Other values shall not be assigned except by revision of this
     standard.
""
So I must agree, the MODS lang attribute can go.

--Andy

>>> [log in to unmask] 01/17/05 1:31 PM >>>
On Jan 17, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Andrew E Switala wrote:

> MODS guidelines say the lang attribute's value comes from ISO 639-2
> bibliographic.

I didn't realize this.

> (The former is valid for the xml:lang attribute; why MODS has two
> different language attributes is another matter.)

But an important one. I don't understand this sort of thing.  Why not
just use THE xml standard for language coding, instead of once again
relying on library-specific stuff?

Bruce