W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9424] Conformance checking of the syntax of <META http-equiv="content-language" content="*">

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:32:29 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1O1w9F-00070w-H2@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9424


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX




--- Comment #8 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-04-14 06:36:24 ---
> Content-language pragma does one thing which you can't do with lang="": It puts
> a border between the document and the HTTP header. This is not something that
> lang="" can do.

Sure it can. You just set it on the root element, and the HTTP header is then
ignored. (This is buggy in some UAs in the one case of setting the default
language to the unknown tag, but this is such a rare case that it really isn't
worth worrying about.)


> HTTP-equiv is unique in that it has effect on the entire
> document, whereas lang="" only works on the element and its children.

The root element encompasses the entire document, so there's no practical
difference.


> if you place @lang in <html>, then you should be covered.  That @lang,
> in a conforming browsers, can override what content-language says, is of course
> how it should be. But they are still different things.

Not in any interesting way.


> In fact, I don't understandd this buisnes with "does not do something that lang
> cannot do". Is it your view that we should nto use HTTP content-language
> either?

HTTP Content-Language has nothing to do with any of this. It is defined as
setting the default target audience language. It doesn't say what language the
document is in. It isn't relevant here. Some browsers misinterpret it, but
that's an issue for the HTTP working group, not for HTML.


> It is precisely because I want to be able to use the HTTP
> content-language header for its real purpose that I want to avoid that such 
> choice affects the document in anyway.

If there's a bug in browsers, please deal with it by having the bug fixed, not
by making HTML more complicated.


> The HTTP header should be canceled with
> the HTTP-equive content-language elemnt. That is pretty logical.

It's also cancelled by setting lang="" on the root element.

EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION* and would like the editor to reconsider,
please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full
HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and
suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
   http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html

Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: There hasn't been new information added since the last time this was
rejected.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 06:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 April 2010 06:36:28 GMT