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

Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:34:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004040031560.2348@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Ian Hickson, Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC):
>   […]
> > RATIONALE
>   […]
> > The same change proposal also suggests a second change, namely to change 
> > the syntax to allow multiple comma-separated language codes, even though 
> > all but the first would be ignored.
> > 
> > User agents do not pay any attention to values after the first.
> 
> Incorrect: Except Mozilla browsers (which looks at *all* the language 
> tags in the list), user agents do not pay attention to <meta> 
> content-language at all when it contains a comma-separated list.

You are correct, I misspoke.


>   […]
> > Even if there was such a need, this feature would be a bad way to provide 
> > that information, since it is used in an incompatible way by user agents 
> > (the first language, and only the first language, is used to determine 
> > processing behaviour -- none of the languages are treated as a target 
> > audience language hint).
> 
> Some incorrectness. Se note above.

Indeed. I should have said that it was a bad way to provide the 
information since it causes user agents other than Mozilla to ignore the 
information altogether.


>   […]
> > POSITIVE EFFECTS
> > * Ensures consistency with current implementation usage of the content 
> > attribute in the Content Language pragma and with earlier specifications.
> 
> Given the incorrectness above, about how UAs use <meta> c-l with 
> multiple language tags, the null change proposal fails to have the 
> effect of providing consistency with "current implementation usage".

Indeed.


> As for consistency with earlier specifications: That can be verified as 
> untrue by looking at *the* earlier specification, HTML4. (Not to talk 
> about the HTTP spec.)

I am not sure what you are referring to here. What claim is incorrect?


> That makes up four incorrect claims. I don't think that the WG should be 
> asked to vote for something which can be easily documented as incorrect 
> claims.

Agreed. I retract the mark II proposal; I shall put forward a third 
proposal that is more accurate.

Thank you for your review.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 00:34:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:16 UTC