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

RE: meta content-language

From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:24:54 -0400
To: "'CE Whitehead'" <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, "'Richard Ishida'" <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0abb01c90869$d24e87c0$76eb9740$@com>

With meta-equiv, would be my guess. But you are right, relying upon HTTP to
provide this information is dangerous. We have to keep in mind (*always*)
that HTML does not mandate HTTP, just as HTTP often delivers non-HTML
payloads.

J.Ja

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of CE Whitehead
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:43 PM
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: 'HTML WG'; www-international@w3.org
> Subject: RE: meta content-language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi.   Just a question.  If meta is to specify the text processing
> language,
> how would people who do not have access to the http headers specify the
> target audience language?
> 
> I'd like to see a meta tag for that too.
> 
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar@hotmail.com
> 
> > From: ishida@w3.org
> > To: ian@hixie.ch
> > CC: public-html@w3.org; www-international@w3.org
> > Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:03 +0100
> > Subject: RE: meta content-language
> >
> >
> > +1 to the arguments that many people on this thread have already been
> making
> > (while I was away) for avoiding the redefinition of meta content-
> language in
> > HTML5. I'd just like to add a couple of points.
> >
> > First, if we're looking for a way of using the meta element rather
> than
> > disallowing it, why not simply propose that it be treated as
> equivalent to
> > an HTTP header declaration, and clearly specify that browsers can use
> the
> > initial item in any sequence of values for the meta content-language
> as a
> > fallback for the default text-processing language where there is no
> language
> > attribute. I believe that this was the original intent, and I suspect
> that
> > this would be consistent with its use in current pages, while still
> > preserving the possibility to use the meta element principally as
> metadata.
> > ( Of course, one would then need to define the relationship between
> any HTTP
> > header and the meta tag when both are applied to a page.)
> >
> > Second, I don't think we should base our rationale for features
> solely on
> > past or current practice. Eg, even though there are few applications
> > processing in-document language metadata at the moment, it seems
> feasible to
> > me that there may be in the future, and that we shouldn't close the
> door on
> > that possibility by changing the meta element to be yet another way
> of just
> > setting the text-processing language - especially since we currently
> have a
> > way of allowing for both attributes and meta data to co-exist.
> >
> > RI
> >
> > ============
> > Richard Ishida
> > Internationalization Lead
> > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/International/
> > http://rishida.net/
> >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 17:25:57 GMT

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