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

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

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 23:40:11 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w35FFA9135E9BD5F9D34639B3180@phx.gbl>
To: <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: <public-html@w3.org>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <www-international@w3.org>

Hi, for my own personal uses it would be best that the  http headers sent by the server never be looked at since my server is remote and I have not found a way to control it.

 

However that remains my personal problem.

 

So I cannot go with Leif's suggestion that you go all the way and give all priority to the http header.

 

Thus I remain in favor of the status quo basically:  I think the html4 specs are fine.  I think for inheritance of the text processing language, first priority should be to the html lang=  followed by the last meta content-language element in cases where there is more than one (here I go with Leif).

 

I favor that the meta content-language element take a comma separated list of one or more languages, or alternately the empty string (null).  Same for the http header which should still get priority for content-negotiation which I cannot benefit from.

 

 

Best,

 

C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar@hotmail.com
> Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:21:45 +0200
> From: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
> To: ian@hixie.ch
> CC: public-html@w3.org; julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II)
> 
> Ian Hickson, Sun, 4 Apr 2010 00:34:29 +0000 (UTC):
> > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> >> Ian Hickson, Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC):
> ...
> >> 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?
> 
> Julian's reading of HTML4 is that HTML4 is silent on this issue. [1] 
> If so (not sure what exactly he meant), then you claim above about 
> consistency with earlier specifications is wrong, for that reason. 
> 
> But perhaps Julian meant this: HTML4 allows both whitespace as well as 
> a comma separated list inside the content attribute. Your change 
> proposal does not allow this. Thus it breaks with HTML4, and thus your 
> claim is untrue. (The HTML4 permission of whitespace is important, as 
> I've argued in another bug 9264.)
> 
> It is also untrue for another reason: HTML4 does make clear that it 
> sees content-language as one and the same thing, regardless of whether 
> it comes from server or from the <meta> c-l tag. The third step in the 
> section "Inheritance of language codes" of HTML4 says: [2] 
> 
> ]] The HTTP "Content-Language" header (which may be configured in a 
> server). For example:
> Content-Language: en-cockney [[
> 
> As you can see, it doesn't even use a <meta> c-l element in the example 
> - instead it shows a HTTP header - despite that the preceding text 
> *does have in mind* the <meta> c-l element: "The HTTP 
> "Content-Language" header (which may be configured in a server)".
> 
> And here we have another problem with your proposal: A HTTP header 
> should be given priority over any <meta> element inside <head> (that is 
> how <meta> charset is treated). But, as we know, user agents do not do 
> that when it comes to <meta> c-l. Well, they do, when it comes to 
> content-negotiation (one of the original purposes of c-l http header). 
> But when it comes to using the c-l HTTP header for fallback, then user 
> agents in practise give priority to the <meta> element, if present. 
> Also, they give priority to the *last* <meta> c-l. 
> 
> OK. But then your text propose that they start to look *not at the 
> last* but at the *first* <meta> c-l. What for? If you ask that user 
> agents make such a drastic change with regard to what they give 
> priority, why not ask them to give priority to the server instead? If 
> you asked them to give priority to the server, then I would be OK with 
> requiring UAs to look at the first <meta> c-l element (whenever there 
> is more than one present). Asking user agents to go the half way is 
> hardly helpful. Then it is better to remain at the point where one 
> already is. (And user agents are united in this: They all give priority 
> to the last <meta> c-l. And they also all give priority to the <met> 
> c-l instead of giving priority to the server.) Why require change, for 
> so little?
> 
> And, btw, I18N group: why don't you make the same point?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4BB703B0.4020201@gmx.de
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/dirlang.html#h-8.1.2
> -- 
> leif halvard silli
> 

 		 	   		  
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 03:40:48 UTC

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