That is an interesting case. When I thought about xml:lang, I had such
scenarios in mind where xml:lang is attached for example to ...
(1) ... <sourceDesc> in order to indicate the actual language of the
source document being described.
(2) ... <ptr> in order to indicate the actual language of the
object/document the pointer points to (as described in the earlier post
When used like this, the assumptions drawn from the information encoded
by xml:lang are wrong in my opinion.
However, when attached to the <TEI>-Element, xml:lang extents it's scope
over all children and childen's children elements and their contents of
<TEI>. One could now argue that these elements and their contents are
nothing but the document itself, which leads to the conclusion, that an
xml:lang attribute at that level makes a statement about the document's
Best regards, Matthias
On 05.04.2011 21:45, stuart yeates wrote:
> On 06/04/11 05:35, Matthias Einbrodt wrote:
>> As for xml:lang I would say there is a difference, because
> > unlike langUsage and textLang it is not used to denote the
> > language of a document, but to denote the language of the
> > textual contents of an TEI-element.
> I'm sorry, but are you saying that:
> <TEI xml:lang="mi" ...>
> should not be used to denote the primary language of a document?
> That's certainly how we've been using it.