- From: M.T. Carrasco Benitez <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:10:22 +0100 (MET)
- To: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
- cc: WInter <www-international@w3.org>, Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>, Fran?ois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.ca>, Martin D?rst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, Charles Wicksteed <charles.wicksteed@reuters.com>
There should be *one place* to indicate the language of the whole
document. This must fulfill the two functions:
- Doc sent by server (the language must be in Content-Language)
- Doc read directly by clients (browser and probably translation aid
based on the web technology)
There are two general approaches:
- External to the doc, e.g., filename, meta-data file
- Internal to the doc, e.g., <html>, <meta http-equiv= ...>
If the same "filename" is always kept it could consider a internal
approach, but it could dangerous.
I will go for *internal* approach to make the doc "autonomous" of other
information around (the doc would have to in "sets" for other functions).
If we want to server to transmit the Content-Language, it to pick it up
from inside the doc. As the server "may" (HTML 3.2) pick up *all* the
<meta http-equiv= ...>, the general facilities should be already in the
server and it is explicit that it would be put in the "RFC 822 style
header". It should not be more wasteful than <html> and in both cases
the server could create meta-data file from for optimization.
Obviously, the general facilities should be there to pick it up from
<html>, but probably be in another module from the one to construct the "RFC
822 style header".
If I remember properly, the docs in the Alis server use the meta approach
for the language.
In brief,
- Indicate the language in only *one place*
- Internal approach (<html> or <meta http-equiv= ...>)
- <html> or <meta http-equiv= ...> are functionally similar
Hence my vote goes for
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" Content=xx>
Regards
Tomas
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 03:51:24 UTC