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

i18n Polyglot Markup/xml:lang+lang (5th issue)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:56:30 +0400
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100716005630662989.84173d86@xn--mlform-iua.no>
> FWIW, the i18n group keeps track of comments on your doc at 
> http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/1007-polyglot/

This is a comment to 5th issue:

	5th issue: 
		]] No mention is made of the lang and xml:lang attributes. The 
document should say that both should be used when language attributes 
are used.[[

	Comment: Indeed, that is a very important bug. But, as the 
focus of this document is to be a _spec_, the document MUST say that 
both xml:lang and lang have to be used - none of them can be used alone.

		It may also recommend the use of the language attributes in the html 
element to set the default language for the document, and mention that 
the meta Content-Language element has no usefulness at all in XML for 
setting the language of content.

	Comment: This feels like, eventually, another issue. It also feels 
very "authoring guide" like. (And, it also depends on the outcome of a 
Change Proposal issue - but it seems that we much on the same page 

	Are there reasons to say anything special about 
http-equiv="Content-language" with regard to Polyglot Markup? Based on 
my previous testing, then all the dominating browser engines behave 
exactly the same way with regard to both http-equiv="Content-Language" 
and lang/xml:lang, regardless of XHTML or HTML parsing is used. So I 
think not.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 21:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:03 UTC