- From: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 09:10:14 -0500
- To: "M.T. Carrasco Benitez" <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Cc: (wrong string) ürst <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, Charles Wicksteed <charles.wicksteed@reuters.com>
À 10:10 21-02-97 +0100, M.T. Carrasco Benitez a écrit : >There should be *one place* to indicate the language of the whole >document. This must fulfill the two functions: > >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). Agreed . That way, a document saved locally, mailed around or served by a server other than HTTP still carries the language info. >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 The facilities "may" be there, are not in practice, and will not IMHO. Too inefficient. It could, however, be a function of a document management system to pick the lang tag from inside the file and put it where the server wants it for efficient serving (filename or metafile or whatever). This would happen once when the file is installed on the server by said document management system. >If I remember properly, the docs in the Alis server use the meta approach >for the language. Some docs have a <meta> for language -- we waffled a bit on this -- but I can assure you that the server does not use it to construct its headers. >Hence my vote goes for > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" Content=xx> Why? You have not given a single argument in favor of it! Regards, -- François Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com> Alis Technologies Inc., Montréal Tél : +1 (514) 747-2547 Fax : +1 (514) 747-2561
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 09:41:17 UTC