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

RE: ISSUE-88 content-language: informal consensus check

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:25:26 +0200
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, addison@lab126.com, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>
Message-ID: <20100430012526571314.ee599a5e@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Richard Ishida, Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:47:50 +0100:
> As we go forward, I expect it to remove confusion  about how the
> Content-Language meta relates to the language attribute, and how the
> Content-Language meta relates to the HTTP header - which I believe is where
> pretty much all the confusion lies.  

Identical UA treatment seems *far* more important w.r.t. removing 
confusion, than anything else. *That* is where the claimed confusion 
is. Further: HTTP-EQUIV Content-Language would only be un-permitted in 
HTML5 documents and not, for example, in XHTML 1.1. You will continue 
to have to explain both that *and* the fact that using http-equiv will 
still work.

On the positive side (to not only be negative), the removal proposal 
treats multiple tags and single tags as equally un-conforming.  But I 
do want to call to your attention that by supporting this proposal, the 
I18NWG will be supporting a proposal which continues to draw a link 
between @lang and Content-Language:

+    <p class="note">This feature is non-conforming. Authors are
+    encouraged to use the <code title="attr-lang">lang</code>
+    attribute instead.</p> 
 
> I expect it to be *much* easier to explain to content authors: You set the
> language of the content using the language attribute. Oh and btw if for some
> reason you fail to do this, the browser may go look at *other* information,
> ie. the metadata in the http header, to see if it can guess at a language.

The above is the same that HTML4 says. So where is the clarification? 
You must be putting high hopes in the validation error message ...

Leif Halvard Silli 29 April 2010 14:40:
>> Like the I18N WG, I have changed my mind - and have been revising my
>> change proposal to reflect this. In essence, I now support the I18N
>> WG's original proposal, which, in effect (on the spec) basically is
>> identical with what Julian and Roy is saying.
>> 
>> Otherwise, what Addison says on behalf of the I18N WG, does not hold
>> true: making Content-Language non-conforming will *not*, quote:
>> "eliminate the confusing (and not useful) overlap in language
>> declaration".
>> 
>> Making the META content-language non-conforming, will only move the
>> "confusion" one step higher up. Because, the HTML5 spec is clear on the
>> fact that HTML5 conforming user agents will inherit the language from
>> the server whenever there isn't whether a @lang attribute nor a META
>> content-language element.

>> Maciej Stachowiak, Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:09:42 -0700:
>>> Since the I18N WG endorses this Change Proposal, and the editor also
>>> agrees, I'd like to hear if anyone else would object to this as a
>>> resolution to ISSUE-88. If no one objects, the Chairs will seek to
>>> close this issue by amicable resolution. If there are objections,
>>> then we will seek some other way to resolve this issue promptly, such
>>> as using a survey.

>>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>>>> On 9 April 2010, Ian Hickson proposed [1] a solution to Issue-88 
    ...
>>>> SUMMARY
>>>> People are confused by the Content-Language pragma, so it should be
>>>> made non-conforming.
    ...
>>>> The Internationalization Core WG has officially endorsed this
>>>> proposed solution [2]. Existing, legacy documents (and non-browser
>>>> processes that use this markup) will not be harmed by this solution
>>>> while this will eliminate the confusing (and not useful) overlap in
>>>> language declaration.

>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0308.html
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/21-core-minutes.html#item04
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 23:26:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT