- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 22:32:46 +0200
- To: W3C HTML <www-html@w3.org>
On Feb 4, 2006, at 19:38, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Consider, for example, the fact that there is nothing resembling > language negotiation on the European Union site > However, as Mikko mentioned, the real problem is that user agents > do not send adequate information. I think an even more real a problem is that users can rarely trust in the translations being up to date. Additionally, language negotiation may hide translations from search engines. In fact, language negotiation depends on the premise that the translations are in sync *and* the user trusts them to be in sync. I think the premise is faulty. How often does the premise actually hold except for frozen EU documents? Even on the EU sites I tend to check out things in two or three languages just in case. How can I trust that eg. debian.org is up to date in Finnish? If I set my browser to prefer English, I can reasonable assume that I am seeing the latest information. > That's not the point. Many people use English-language browsers and > systems for several reasons - for example, because a browser of > their choice exists only in an English version, or because its > localization is awful (wrong translations, etc.). Actually, the case where I think language negotiation actually works is for Web apps. Their UIs are not indexed by search engines anyway, so the search engine interaction is not a problem. Also, UI string bundles can be piece-wise translated so that if a translation is stale, the localization system can fall back to English for individual strings without preventing access to the latest version of the app. For this purpose Safari's way of reflecting the OS X UI language preference order in Accept-Language is exactly the right thing to do. (It may not be for prose.) And even then there's the problem with Internet cafés. > Besides, even if the language of your browser happens to be your > native language, what about all the _other_ languages you might > know? In the WWW context, even languages you know just a little are > important in the preferences. Indeed. It appears that thoroughly expressing one's language preferences is hard even if one is aware about language negotiation. Considering your stated language skills[1], I would expect you to choose Danish if presented with Danish and Chinese language alternatives. (I am assuming that your Swedish parser is not Draconian. :-) Yet, your Accept-Language does not advertise Danish (or Norwegian). Given the choices, a person can pick a language by following a link. However, it is likely that the person will not encode all the relevant data in the Accept-Language header even if the person is well aware of the header. Considering how language negotiation is a permathread and how people feel the need to come up with things like XHTML 2.0 hreflang, perhaps language negotiation for content isn't such a good idea after all. It seems to me that all the architecture astronautics are not worth the trouble compared to plain links to search engine-friendly language- specific URLs. [1] http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/languages.html -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 20:32:55 UTC