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   
Archives Portal Europe      

-----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)