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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 19:54:40 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100404195440996616.057e77e3@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Julian Reschke, Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:36:31 +0200:
> On 04.04.2010 00:38, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 04.04.2010 00:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:00:32 -0700, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>> The attribute is an HTML attribute, but it's value space is defined by
>>>>> the HTTP header registry.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Changing this in general *will* cause objections (yes, those).
>>>> 
>>>> Please stop the drama. In the ten years it was deployed it was never
>>>> implemented as HTML4 specified. No wonder its semantics are being
>>>> changed to match reality.
>>> 
>>> I was just stating a fact.
>>> 
>>> The fact that browsers do not implement this doesn't mean it isn't used
>>> in documents.
>> 
>> Browsers _do_ implement it, contrary to HTML4, which intends it for
>> servers, who don't implement it. You may wish to recheck your facts.
> 
> By "it" I meant http-equiv in general, not specifically Content-Language.
> 
> I have no problems with the spec stating the facts (how UAs actually 
> use http-equiv/C-L, as long as it's accurate).

Neither Ian or the I18N WG are accurate in that respect. For the n'th 
time:

* Ian wants that UAs should start to treat the *first* <meta> c-l 
element (if there are more than one) as authoritative, despite that 
*all* UAs treat the last as the authoritative one. Ian also insist on a 
"puristic" syntax, despite that user agents reacts and needs the 
"dirty" syntax that HTML4 permits. (The @content attribute is CDATA, in 
HTML4)

* The I18N WG OTOH, can't hold itself back from wishing a way to pick 
the default language even when the <meta> c-l contains multiple 
language tags. And does also not protest against Ian's change of which 
<meta> c-l that should be the authoritative one.

We should EITHER try to change as little as possible - keep things as 
they are in HTML4, but describe the reality on the ground better (that 
is what my change proposal attempts to do [1]). OR we should make much 
deeper change than any of the above, where we, first of all, make user 
agents give priority to the server sent header. (And make the 
validators through an error if the <meta> content-language differs from 
the server sent content-language.)

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 17:55:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT