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

Re: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:45:12 -0800
Message-ID: <4210F1B8.612073DC@i18nguy.com>
To: aphillips@webmethods.com
CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Thanks Addison.

I wish I had been there. Sorry I missed it, not because I take a slight
issue with it, but because I hate to restart a discussion when the group
has already spent time on it, and contributing to delay of our already
overworked team.

Anyway, with respect to this:

1) I need to understand the ramifications of "processing language". It
is more inline with xml terminology, but I am not sure what it means
with respect to natural language. I would be glad for a pointer.

2) The larger web servers are concerned with the size of their web pages
and want to minimize them to maximize performance/throughput. Seems very
wasteful to have a nullifying statement added to a document where no
statement would do. Since people follow the trends they see in the pages
of the larger web servers (meaning those that serve the most pages, like
search engines) it would be good if we minded size and made it likely
they would comply.

3) As stated, I agree with lang encompassing the header, but some
headers are multilingual, along with bodies, and in that case, I was
suggesting a lang attribute on an html element seemed unnecessary and
possibly misleading to a processing agent. However, we are talking about
a very rare situation so it is not worth arguing about. I was just
arguing with the idea that it be required. We should tolerate pages that
conform to the standard, and as long as every element either has a lang
attribute or inherits one, we shouldn't care if there is one on the html
element.

4) If you require an attribute on the entire document, doesn't it
override the http setting of language? (not that it works all that well
to begin with...)
It is not the same as charset with respect to prioritization is it?
I don't see this as a problem, but it might be worth highlighting the
point.

5) For some documents, where the contents are dynamically created, the
language isn't known until later, and so are designed to have a neutral
header and then processing fills in. This requires a change for the body
generation to also generate the html element now, or to lie about the
language (using null or some default value) and assert a new one when
the actual generation occurs.

So although the guideline applies to many documents, it is wasteful and
can require rearchitecting the design of dynamically generated
documents. I wouldn't make it a requirement...

ah well. I can't participate in a lengthy debate while I am traveling.
Maybe when I return.

tex



"Addison Phillips [wM]" wrote:
> 
> 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年2œˆ14— 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
> > -------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 20:04:01 GMT

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