Interesting issue. Let me add one more fragment to this:
target="pol/UDHR/text.xml#pol_txt_1-head" type="tuv" xml:lang="pl"/>
target="swh/UDHR/text.xml#swh_txt_1-head" type="tuv" xml:lang="sw"/>
(raw from )
Apart from the issue of whether <link> or <ptr> should be used to align
the relevant fragments (I'd still say <ptr> is more flexible and handles
misalignments better), it's worth pointing out that @xml:lang plays an
unlicensed semantic role here, of which the creator of this markup
should probably be ashamed, but which may be taken to indicate the
near-natural-language-like re/ab-use (exaptation?) of markup language
constructs originally designed to perform a different role.
On 05.04.2011 22:04, stuart yeates wrote:
> says of xml:lang: "(language) indicates the language of the element
> content using a ‘tag’ generated according to BCP 47"
> http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace says: "Designed for identifying the
> human language used in the scope of the element to which it's attached."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/ makes it clear that the scope in question is
> lexical scope (in the computer science sense).
> My question is whether xml:lang can be assumed to make implications
> about the semantic content of the tags as well as the character content.
> Or in other words are the two fragments are semantically the same:
> <bibl xml:lang="ru"><title xml:lang="en">War and Peace</title><author
> xml:lang="en">Leo Tolstoy</author></bibl>
> <bibl xml:lang="en"><title>War and Peace</title><author>Leo