W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: Language label

From: Drazen Kacar <Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 09:56:47 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <199702280856.JAA07762@jagor.srce.hr>
To: carrasco@innet.lu
Cc: Drazen.Kacar@public.srce.hr, misha.wolf@reuters.com, www-international@w3.org, unicode@unicode.org
M.T. Carrasco Benitez wrote:
> > Why? If the processing goes into servers, it should be robust. Servers
> > should treat clients as their worst enemies. :)
> One should avoid making innecessary ennemies: if the standard says the
> language label is only in one place, there is no need to be overdefensive.

Eh... Too many applications are buggy.

> > > There must be possible to transport (floppies, attached, etc) a document
> > > with the lang and charset *inside*.  Having it as a file name extension
> > > could be consider *inside* (not a very good solution), but a doubt about a
> > > directory.
> > 
> > I doubt also.
> I do not get the point: transport is unnecessary, directory is a good
> solution, ...

I just agreed that my preferred method wouldn't work well when mirroring
is involved. It is still my preffered method, though. People tend to
forget little things, like putting language tags into documents. If the
server can format Content-Language header based on the directory, I can
minimise the human factor. That's all.

I have nothing against putting language tags into the document, but I doubt
that many people would do that. With directory labelling in effect, I can
tell my lusers to put English documents in ~/public_html/en, German
documents in ~/public_html/de, Croatian documents in ~/public_html/hr
and so on.

They work 24 hours a day and 256 days a year  --  root@fly.cc.fer.hr

Received on Friday, 28 February 1997 03:57:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:16 UTC