Re: [xsl] XSLT (2) namespace safe i18n patterns

[Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun@xxxxxxxxx>]

The primary purpose of namespaces is to provide distinction between
the vocabulary of different application domains. Language can be
viewed as a facet of the presentation layer and should be treated
separately.

Having all translations within a document, presumably with many
repetitions, is not attractive. A translation service might very well
be defined on top of the essential XML structure, with XPath
expressions being used to identify the items that are subject to
translation, either content or attribute values. Another approach is
to add markup to the basic document (e.g.
http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/ZPTInternationalizationSupport).

Perhaps an XML centered user list is a better forum for this discussion.

-W


On 11/23/09, ac <ac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Syd,
>
> Thank you for your quick response. Yes xml:lang was defined for i18n.
> Aren't "natural" languages a reference model for namespaces?
>
> I use xml:lang for translation dictionary applications, but it does not
> seem to apply well here.  I was looking for something more optimal for
> this context.  Restricting i18n to xml:lang seems to also mean that
> (sizable) applications are either initially designed for i18n or not at
> all, and that attributes cannot be internationalized.  I think and hope
> that we can do better.
>
> If you have 1M elements, for example with 2 different display attributes
> each, the xml:lang approach would imply 2M more elements for each
> supported language (e.g. 5 languages would mean 10M additional nodes, 10
> times more), more elaborate processing (over, let's say 25K lines of
> XSLT), changing document structure and content as well as most attribute
> processing to element processing, a design "made for "i18n" (e.g.
> translation dictionary) rather than a design optimized for the
> application at stake.
>
> Comparatively, managing namespaces with discipline and maintaining a
> stable environment so that prefixes do not effectively change, does not
> seem so bad, yet I still hope to do better.  Any help appreciated.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Cheers,
> ac
>
>
>> My gut instinct is that it is a less than optimal solution to try to
>> use namespaces to differentiate natural languages. That's what
>> xml:lang= is for, after all.
>>
>>   <z>
>>     <canonical>MD</canonical>
>>     <name xml:lang="en">medical doctor</name>
>>     <name xml:lang="fr">midecin</name>
>>     <name xml:lang="zh-TW">...</name>
>>   </z>
>>
>>
>>> namespace, (XML) namespaces seemed designed to support localization
>>> (e.g. i18n).  Namespace safety seems to damper that somewhat, and I am
>>> looking for an optimal pattern.  Many list members here have worked
>>> extensively with internationalization and namespaces, can anyone help me
>>> find an optimal pattern to handle this:.
>>>
>>> In a large XSLT2 project with lots of rich display vocabulary and
>>> languages, we have (many different) elements that can include
>>> display attributes like <z name="Displayed Name" .../>
>>>
>>> To support i18n for those names, it seems natural to define
>>> namespaces for each supported language, using the 2-letter
>>> localization codes, as:
>>>
>>> <global-element
>>>     xmlns:fr="http://www.somedomain.com/fr";
>>>     xmlns:en="http://www.somedomain.com/fr";
>>>     xmlns:de="http://www.somedomain.com/fr";
>>>     more-attributes=". . ."
>>>  >
>>>
>>> <!-- . . . -->
>>>
>>> <!-- and creating corresponding attributes in the displayed elements,
>>> like: -->
>>>      <z name="MD" fr:name="Midecin" en:name="Medical Doctor"
>>> more-attributes-and-content=". . ." />
>>>
>>> <!-- . . . -->
>>>
>>> <!-- as well as having other "context setting" elements that can define
>>> locale, like: -->
>>> <person lang="fr" more-attributes-and-content=". . ." />
>>>
>>> <!-- and at display time, using the @lang attribute from the context
>>> element (e.g. person) to match and select the "name" attribute from the
>>> displayed element (e.g. z), in the proper namespace (e.g. fr), for
>>> example.  Directly matching localization codes with namespace prefixes,
>>> could provide great i18n flexibility and simplicity. -->
>>>
>>> </global-element>
>>>
>>> Localization codes are stable, but namespace prefixes may not be.
>>> Changing prefixes can seriously break this scheme. What could/should be
>>> the best way/pattern to manage this in a (namespace) safe way?