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 
there.)

	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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT