W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > January to March 2011

[Bug 10152] [polyglot] i18n comment 5 : Mention lang and xml:lang

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:00:45 +0000
To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Q1mDV-0000fn-Hn@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10152

--- Comment #25 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-21 21:00:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> If the meta content-language element is obsoleted by the spec, will the
> fallback rules remain?

Yes. (If by "rules" you refer to how HTML5 user agents are required to treat
it.)

The HTML5 Change Proposal that the chairs adopted
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0308
does not affect how user agents, according HTML5, are going to treat it.

See my explantion here: 
http://www.w3.org/mid/20110319171903849246.ab7bc210@xn--mlform-iua.no

> It doesn't seem logical to forbid use of a construct
> then go on to describe how that construct affects behaviour in the browser.

HTML5 forbids. But Polyglot Markup does not really forbid anything. Instead,
the text in equestion  *prescribes* the use of @lang/@xml:lang to avoid the
trouble that HTTP/http-equiv lang causes. It makes sense, to me, to describe
why Polyglot Markup has this extra rule. That's similar to how Polyglot Markup
gives a reason for a few other necessities.

Meanwhile the text speaks about both HTTP (which is not forbidden) and
http-equiv. The problem with not mentioning http-equiv is that it gives the
author a false security - he/she may think she/he is safe due to the omission
of http-equiv. Whereas reality is that anyhting EXEPT the invalid http-equiv,
with a *single*, *valid* language tag inside @content, will cause the UA to
look inside the HTTP Content-Language: header.

>  Why
> don't we wait a little to see how things settle before rewriting this text over
> and over.

The "over and over" (_excluding the very last change_ proposed in Comment #22)
has nothing to do with an instable HTML5 spec. Rather it has to do with
difficulty in explaining the HTML5 rules. 

Comment #22 proposes some small changes to the proposal madein #21. These small
chanvges are a result of the HTMLwg decision in ISSUE-88.

It looks to me as if ISSUE-88 has to be revisited:
http://www.w3.org/mid/4D84E757.7070408@intertwingly.net
So the editor could of course wait and see. However, I think it is very good if
the text tries to express the current status in HTML5 - that could help us in
eventually bring ISSUE-88 up again.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 21 March 2011 21:00:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 March 2011 21:00:47 GMT