W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > November 2003

RE: AW: XHTML 2.0 and hreflang and type

From: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:25:03 -0500
Message-ID: <410-22003114132253484@mindspring.com>
To: "Oskar Welzl" <oskar.welzl@pan.at>, "W3C HTML List" <www-html@w3.org>

Perhaps I was being too subtle. The point I tried to obliquely raise in my
previous post is "Why has type been changed from being descriptive to being
proscriptive?" This is a change from HTML4. Further, if an author wishes to
indicate that a png file is preferable to a gif (As is usually the case. :)
) then instead of:

<span type="image/png, image/gif; q=0.1" src="../images/115">
 Image #115
</span>

One could use:
<span type="image/png" src="../images/115.png">
 <span type="image/gif" src="../images/115.gif">
   Image#115
 </span>
</span>

I see no reason why type should be changed from being advisory as it is in
HTML4 to being proscriptive as it is in the XHTML2 draft.

> > (Question: would hrefcharset or hrefencoding be of any use?
>
> It wouldn't, no.

I'd agree with you Oskar  100%  as far as hrefencoding is concerned, but
only 99% for hrefcharset.
As things stand now the charset can serve as an admittedly imperfect way of
indicating the script a language is in.
However it would be preferable if some attribute using the ISO 15924 codes
were used instead to indicate the script.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:25:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:09 UTC