I18n comments on Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0

Version reviewed

These are comments on behalf of the I18N WG.

We recommend that responses to the comments in this table use a separate email for each point. This makes it easier to track threads.

ID	Location	Subject	Comment	Ed. / Subs.
1	sec. 2.5.1	About pishing	As for the topic of pishing: Please add a reference to utr 36 and utr 39, which provide possible solutions for the problems you are mentioning.	E
2	app. A	Versions of XML and XML Namespaces	You write: "For example: XML 1.1 or HTML documents tied through hypertext reference producing as many DOM linked to one another." What is the relation between versions of XML and XML namespaces in this scenario? E.g what happens, if an XML 1.0 document references an XML 1.1. document? It might be that this depends on the languages being compounded, but you should have general guidelines for (new) languages as well.	S
3	app. A	Spelling error	"A parent document represents a document that has a DOM as defined by DOM Level 3 Core and reference": replace "reference" with "references".	E
4	general	General support of IRI	We propose that you make support for IRI a mandatory feature for CDF by reference. It might be that the possiblity of referencing IRI depends on the languages being compounded, but you should have general guidelines for (new) languages as well.	S
5	general	Language identification for child documents	If you ask an SVG document about language information, and the document is inside an HTML document, the xml:lang attribute in the HTML applies to the SVG as well. It seems that the compounding specs should say: "You should get the same results for both inclusion and referencel."	S