W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: meta content-language

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:13:02 +0200
Message-ID: <48AE048E.2070907@malform.no>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>

Roy T. Fielding 2008-08-22 00.45:

> On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:


>> From HTML 4, Section 8.1.2, Inheritance of language codes:
>>
>>    An element inherits language code information according
>>    to the following order of precedence (highest to lowest):
>>      * The lang attribute set for the element itself.
>>      * The closest parent element [...]
>>      * The HTTP "Content-Language" header [...]
>>      * User agent default values and user preferences.
> 
> FTR, I don't see anything wrong with using the languages in
> Content-Language as a last-gap alternative to the default when
> no other in-content language processing information is present.
> However, that is quite different from changing the meaning of
> content-language to be about language processing.

Agreed.  And because Ian told that only the first value is used in 
case several languages are on the list, it shouldn't be necessary 
to say that listing several would be non-conforming!

Who needs /that/ error message?

There is nothing in the draft's clarification of what HTML 4 says 
about using "Content-Language" as fallback which /requires/ that 
the primary function, namely HTTP "Content-Language", is removed.

> I.e., making a correlation between the two for default processing
> is reasonable because it is more likely to result in the correct
> language being chosen than it would to ignore the metadata entirely.
> That does not make it a replacement for lang or xml:lang.


Do you also agree that while the HTML 4 inheritance algorithm 
clearly intends that "Content-Language" from the server will 
override the META element, there should be no harm in introduceing 
a distinction so that, for this secondary use, the META element 
will override the server header? (Following the logic that what's 
in the document is likely to be more correct.)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 00:13:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT