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

RE: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:20:58 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w2364BBAED88E9932B9557B3E30@phx.gbl>
To: <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, <mark@macchiato.com>
CC: <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <public-html@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>, <ian@hixie.ch>, <hsivonen@iki.fi>, <addison@lab126.com>, <jonas@sicking.cc>


Hi, Leif, all:

Thanks Leif very much for considering a compromise.

I guess I'd love compromise, but I do not particularly like making the meta http-equiv entirely in error 
because it is still being used by browser makers 
-- I'd prefer a warning not an error message --
and truthfully I never have seen the reason you all have that it is a problem here;
(If it is a major problem I need data -- more than the following which I see as unproblematic
and showing a preference for meta http-equiv
http://www.w3.org/International/tests/tests-html-css/tests-language-declarations/results-language-declarations)
However I find it preferable to have the meta http-equiv an outright error rather than having it non-conforming to the http header.
The latter option is way too confusing I think though perhaps it would be better to hear from browser and application makers as far as the confusion issue goes -- since I worry most about confusion on their part.
(I'm not sure why as I am sure most know the standards as well as . . . so it's just questionable in terms of how they will try to make things work and what they will do for compatibility with existing content and applications --
so they not I will have to decide here I think  [not that I want to change my own content; I don't; but I set the html lang anyway; just so long as the browsers will parse my html content as it is I do not care about validator warnings or error messages)

For my part I'd like to see more affirmation of the lang= null attribute in the wording on content-language.
Otherwise I like Leif's previous proposal, but I will consider a compromise that does not start kicking out error-mesages,
but I'd love to hear from someone else.

Thanks!

Best,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 03:49:14 +0200
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Addison Phillips <addison@lab126.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 
Message-ID: <20100520034914125374.ece5a399@xn--mlform-iua.no> 

fantasai, Wed, 19 May 2010 02:21:44 -0700:
> On 05/19/2010 02:06 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> "Addison Phillips"<addison@lab126.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> - HTML should (continue to) strongly recommend the presence of @lang
>>> (and warn in validators if it is not present)
>> 
>> If validators did that, there'd be even more templates, etc., filling in a
>> placeholder value that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the
>> actual content.
> 
> In that case, I would suggest following Leif's suggestion and only
> posting a warning about a missing lang="" if the Content-Language
> HTTP header or <meta http-equiv> pragma is present. This is more
> likely to catch authors who are trying to specify the language but
> doing so wrongly, and avoid the authors who don't care.

Don't you think that making the pragma an outright error *could* work, 
provided that the language fallback warning from my current change 
proposal is implemented as well?  I see 3 differences from Ian's "Make 
Content-Language pragma non-conforming" proposal:

 A. validators/spec would not ask authors to "use @lang instead";
 B. validators would show an additional warning in case the 
       pragma caused the fallback language measure to kick in;
 C. validators would warn if the C-L HTTP header caused language
       fallback; The warning for B. and C. should ask authors to 
       take control via html@lang.

Advantages:

  1. Limits the actual fallback- fallback in the wild is 
     more often caused by pragma than by HTTP.
     (MAMA showed pragma to be used 10 times as often as HTTP.)
  2. Naturally increases focus on @lang
  3. A step towards the ideal goal which the I18NWG expressed in
     their feedback: that we get rid of fallback.
  4. doesn't assume that authors misunderstand C-L.

Disadvantages:

   - It might be confusing that the C-L pragma may affect the document 
language despite being invalid - who will notice it? This is the why I 
suggest to show both a fallback warning (if it kicks in) as well as an 
error - to make authors aware. Such a warning can also limit the 
occurrence of bogus language tags.
   - Inability to validly implement "fallback" without a server.

Comments:

 A., B. and C. differ from Ian's proposal to make the pragma invalid.

 Regarding A.: to tell authors to "use @lang instead of pragma" assumes 
that all authors have the same misinterpretation about the semantics of 
the Content-Language pragma. It is better to remain completely silent 
on what to do "instead", rather than assuming any particular 
(mis)understanding. Eventually one should also list HTTP C-L as an 
alternative to the C-L pragma.
 Regarding B.: I am open to discussing to not implement (B), in case 
two error messages instead of only one would seem confusing.
 Regarding C.: An alternative to (C) could be to require UAs to not use 
HTTP as basis for fallback.
-- 
> leif halvard silli

 		 	   		  
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 23:21:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:17 UTC