W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:47:56 -0000
To: <aphillips@webmethods.com>, "'Tex Texin'" <tex@i18nguy.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050214194755.CE21C4F3EE@homer.w3.org>

Hi Addison,

Note that XHTML2 is in a different ballgame here from XHMTL 1 and HTML.  

If we require the xml:lang in the html, we need to be able to use xml:lang="" when appropriate.

In HTML/XHTML1 most authors will set no declaration on html by omitting the attribute, since it is not required, rather than setting the attributes to "".  I think this is acceptable for these versions, since it is expecting a lot of authors currently to hope they'll add lang="" xml:lang="" to such docs, and most of them won't even know about this, so we'll get no kind of consistency. (We should still require it for XHTML2, though).

Re. terminology: Note that GEO just voted to write "text-processing language" rather than "text processing language".

RI


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [wM] [mailto:aphillips@webmethods.com] 
> Sent: 14 February 2005 18:06
> To: Tex Texin; Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> 
> We discussed this in a WG call you missed, Tex.
> 
> The requirement for an xml:lang attribute on the 'html' 
> element is to provide more visibility to the language 
> declaration for documents and allow it to encompass the 
> header. You'll note that our recommendation to the HTML WG 
> for XHTML 2.0 had two parts: (i) require the attribute, but 
> (ii) allow it to be empty [e.g. xml:lang=""]. True 
> multilingual documents will use the empty value and provide 
> meta elements describing the language of the content. 
> Documents that have a specific default processing language 
> will set a value.
> 
> Note GEO's distinction between "processing language" 
> (xml:lang) and the language of the document (meta).
> 
> I have removed outsiders from this response, since I'm typing 
> too rapidly to check my terminology, etc. above and want to 
> issue a unified reponse.
> 
> Addison
> 
> Addison P. Phillips
> Director, Globalization Architecture
> http://www.webMethods.com
> 
> Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group 
> http://www.w3.org/International
> 
> Internationalization is an architecture. 
> It is not a feature.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tex Texin
> > Sent: 2005?2?14? 10:00
> > To: Richard Ishida
> > Cc: 'Michael Cooper'; 'WAI WCAG List'; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I think this bears a little discussion. I agreed with Richard's 
> > wording but noted that Michael spoke of requiring it.
> > 
> > A *requirement* for html elements to have a lang attribute, is 
> > different from the recommendation that it is a good idea to 
> have it specified.
> > 
> > Perhaps in the context of the test guidelines, requirement has a 
> > special meaning. If not, we should not insist on html 
> elements having 
> > a lang attribute.
> > 
> > For one, the head contents can have their own langs, as 
> noted. For my 
> > pages, I sometimes translate the content descriptions and 
> keywords, etc.
> > and so the head has no single language. (I wish we could 
> have multiple
> > titles!)
> > 
> > For two, unfortunately a document can only have one primary 
> language, 
> > even though there are documents that are multilingual in nature and 
> > may not have one overriding language.
> > It would therefore be misleading to force the multilingual 
> document to 
> > have a single primary language and should be quite fine to move the 
> > lang attribute to the body or lower in the document. 
> (Anyone try html 
> > with two bodies?)
> > 
> > For most documents the recommendation is quite right, put the lang 
> > attribute on the html element. But I would be careful with 
> *requiring* 
> > it.
> > 
> > I noted also that the guideline refers to language setting 
> by http. If 
> > this is referring to content-language, that describes the intended 
> > audience, not the language of the document, and they may be 
> different.
> > And I never quite figured out what to do if the content-language 
> > listed multiple languages, since the document can only be 
> assigned one 
> > primary language.
> > Is there another way for http to declare the language of a document?
> > If not, the guidelines should clarify the distinction.
> > 
> > tex
> > 
> > 
> > Richard Ishida wrote:
> > > 
> > > Apologies. This links is much better than the one below:
> > > http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-lang.html
> > > 
> > > ============
> > > Richard Ishida
> > > W3C
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> > > > [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard 
> > > > Ishida
> > > > Sent: 14 February 2005 15:43
> > > > To: 'Michael Cooper'; 'WAI WCAG List'
> > > > Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Copying i18n]
> > > >
> > > > Just noticed this.  Please do not recommend putting language 
> > > > information on the body element.  Please strongly 
> recommend that 
> > > > it be put on the html element.
> > > >
> > > > Please also look at http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/
> > > > before designing your test.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, note that the test procedure is incorrect in step 6.  A 
> > > > French Canadian document may be marked up as fr-CA, 
> which is more 
> > > > than just a ISO
> > > > 639 language code.  (Another example, Simplified Chinese may be 
> > > > zh-Hans, using a special IANA-registered code.)  The correct 
> > > > reference point is RFC
> > > > 3066 *or it's successors* (since one is currently in 
> preparation).  
> > > > This is a large set of possibilities, so I'm not sure 
> how you will 
> > > > easily be able to test that the code is correct.
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, you might recommend that the *first part* of the 
> > > > langauge code is an ISO 639 or IANA registered code.
> > > > Just thought that up, so I'm not sure whether it makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > Also, you should reconsider your test files
> > > > - the examples shown seem to assume an XML MIME type, 
> rather than 
> > > > text/html by saying that the lang attribute is invalid
> > > > -     or did you mean that the language attribute value,
> > > > "language", is
> > > > invalid? - in which case, you should still specify the 
> MIME type 
> > > > used (ie.
> > > > currently text/html)
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > RI
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ============
> > > > Richard Ishida
> > > > W3C
> > > >
> > > > contact info:
> > > > http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> > > >
> > > > W3C Internationalization:
> > > > http://www.w3.org/International/
> > > >
> > > > Publication blog:
> > > > http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > > > > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cooper
> > > > > Sent: 14 February 2005 15:11
> > > > > To: WAI WCAG List
> > > > > Subject: RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there is nothing wrong with providing the "lang"
> > > > > attribute on the <body> element, but I think we should
> > > > still require
> > > > > it on the <html> element. This is a place we can expect
> > > > user agents to
> > > > > be consistent in looking for the attribute. Also, there are
> > > > elements
> > > > > in the <head> section of the document that require language 
> > > > > information, such as the title, description, keywords, and
> > > > potentially
> > > > > others. While it possible to see the attribute on those
> > > > individually,
> > > > > I just think it is good practice to have the attribute at
> > > > the highest
> > > > > level possible. Michael
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chris Ridpath [mailto:chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca]
> > > > > > Sent: February 11, 2005 2:54 PM
> > > > > > To: WAI WCAG List
> > > > > > Cc: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl; Michael Cooper
> > > > > > Subject: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yvette suggested that another way to pass test 49 [1] would
> > > > > be to put
> > > > > > a lang attribute on the body tag. e.g. <body lang="nl>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should we permit this? Or do we always require that 
> the HTML 
> > > > > > lang
> > > > > > attribute(s) be set?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test49.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > 
> > --
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
> > Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
> >                          
> > XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
> > Making e-Business Work Around the World
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> 
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 19:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:49 GMT