W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Tongue twister

From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:27:09 +0000
Message-ID: <1070386029.3fcccb6dab31d@>
To: W3C WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> ATM, in order to 'pass' tests, you have to use XHTML 1.0 Transitional and put
> <html lang="en-gb" xml:lang="en-gb">

As is recommended by the appendix on backwards compatibility with XHTML1.0.

You could personally delete every user-agent in the world that recognises lang 
but not xml:lang, and we'll all be grateful. Otherwise we're going to need 
transitional techniques.

> Personally I think this is all useless anyway, since a global declaration is
> really the responsibility of the following META tag:
> <meta name="language" content="en-gb" />

Why use a make-up-as-you-go along meta element when there is a standard 
attribute? Why would you expect the meta element to work?

I can see the point of using <meta name="DC.Language" content="en-gb" /> or 
Dublin Core in RDF/XML, only for user-agents that care about metadata and not 
the content.

Why have a global version of anything that can be scoped - just use the scoped 
method in the widest scope.

> The lang or xml:lang attribute should only be used when the language changes
> mid-stream as such (assuming the english META had been declared):
> <p class="bodyText">The governor of the Bank of England took a <span
> xml:lang="fr">laissez-faire</span> attitude to raising interest rates</p>

So it you have this there, then what do you gain by inventing a new technique?

Given that this is in addition to the HTTP content-language headers and in 
addition to Dublin Core I really can't see the point of any of this.

Jon Hanna                   | Toys and books
<http://www.hackcraft.net/> | for sick children:
                            | <http://santa.boards.ie/>
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 12:27:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC