W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion

From: Tex Texin <tex@i18nguy.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 09:59:47 -0800
Message-ID: <4210E713.3A58BC0@i18nguy.com>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: 'Michael Cooper' <michaelc@watchfire.com>, 'WAI WCAG List' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org

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 17:59:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:35 GMT