W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > October to December 2009

RE: ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:15:30 -0000
To: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Michael \(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ea01ca798a$158843e0$4098cba0$@org>
Hi Leif,

Thanks for getting back to us and reassuring us (we do seem to be on the
same wavelength).  

The i18n WG think it makes sense for us to take over the action to produce
the change proposal.  (Thanks for considering it.)

Best regards,
RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> Sent: 09 December 2009 20:03
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; 'Paul Cotton'; 'Michael (tm) Smith'
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple - Chairs Solicit
Proposals
> 
> Richard Ishida, Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:05:01 -0000:
> > Hello Leif,
> >
> > I was told that in your change proposal you will propose that the lang
> > attribute supports multiple language values.
> 
> Whatever the reason: the one/ones who told you so was/were in error.
> 
> >  Although we haven't discussed
> > it for this particular topic, I'm certain that the i18n WG will strongly
> > oppose such a suggestion, based on a long history of working with and
> > educating about the language attributes.  The main reason for this is
that
> > the language attribute defines the language of a range of text for
> > text-processing purposes, which requires  information about a single
> > language - use of multiple language values makes no sense for that.
> Another
> > reason is that for consistency similar changes would have to be made for
> > xml:lang - and the likelihood of that happening in the near timeframe is
> > essentially zero.
> >
> > For more information about this and the difference between values of
> > language attributes and those of the HTTP header or the meta
> > Content-Language element, see
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373
> >
> > Could you please confirm to us whether you were planning to propose the
> > above, and if so could we please discuss this (and indeed any other
> > divergences from the proposal made by the i18n WG at
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/1086.html)
before
> > you submit your change proposal?
> 
> I have followed the debate fairly thoroughly, and I also filed the bug
> report that lead to Issue-88. I gave my interpretation of the I18N WG's
> proposal here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/mid/20091126202756258786.e7d3d2a4@xn--mlform-
> iua.no
> 
> Perhaps be the confusing point in that letter were the following:
> 
> ]]
> But since the meta may also be used to set the
> language of the document, if the lang attribute is lacking or wrongly
> set in the <html> element - or consciously do so, then - for that
> purpose - if you place multiple languages inside the meta element, then
> it is equal to setting multiple languages inside the lang attribute.
> [[
> 
> When I said the above, I meant exactly the same that you expressed in
> the I18N WG's proposal message which you pointed to above:
> 
> ]]
> [4] Establish the rule that multiple values in the place that has
> precedence
> equates to lang="".
> [[
> 
> That is, if someone defines the audience languages like this:
> 
> <meta http-equiv=content-language content="en" />
> 
> then it may also be interpreted as setting the document language to
> "en":
> 
> <html lang="en">
> 
> Whereas if sets the audience languages to these:
> 
> <meta http-equiv=content-language content="en, de, ru" />
> 
> then it must be interpreted as if the document language is unknown:
> 
> <html lang="" >
> 
> Please let me know if my interpretation deviates much from yours.
> 
> By the way: I offered to write the change proposal because I filed the
> bug - I felt that was like taking responsibility  for ones acts.
> However, I would be happy to step down from that duty, and have been
> considering that thought since you entered the thread asking about the
> next step. After all, I read that you talked with Ian at the W3C
> conference recently and so on - it sounded as if you were approaching
> and understanding. Please let me know if you think that would be in
> order.
> 
> BR
> Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 11:16:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 December 2009 11:16:07 GMT