- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:54:43 +0100
- To: public-html-wg-announce@w3.org
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, HTMLwg WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby, Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:21:21 -0400:
Regrets: It looks I am unable to be present during the call.
> d) ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple
> No counter proposal received
> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Htmlissue88
Comment: The agenda says 'no counter proposal received'. This is
roughly correct, because my alternative proposal [1] isn't all that
different from the I18N Wg's proposal. This is where they differ:
a) MY PROP says that the the issue of setting the default language
via <meta> c-l should be solved by specifying that it is the *last*
<meta> c-l element which counts in that respect, whereas the first
<meta> c-l is the one to be used by servers/cms-es. This is compatible
with current user agents.
I18N WG's PROP says that it is the first language tag inside the
<meta> c-l that counts. No UAs implement this today.
HTML5 says that it is the *first* <meta> that counts. The I18N
Wg's proposal doesn't protest against this.
b) MY PROP says that it should be permitted to just place whitespace
inside the @content attribute of <meta> c-l, as this can solve some
unfortunate language inheritance effects in current user agents. This
is already permitted in HTML4/XHTML.
I18N WG's PROP only says that @content should contain a comma
separated list - and doesn't mention the whitespace option. (Actually,
i18n wg's proposal, last I checked, talks about a space separated list
instead of comma separated list. But this got to be an error ...!]
I support the I18N's wg's proposal over the the current spec. But would
support it more wholeheartedly if my viewpoints on a) and especially on
b) was incorporated into their proposal.
[1]
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage
--
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 13:55:45 UTC