Re: RE: Defining the language of a document

Copying the directory is just handy in identifying all files that need to be
translated. Until translated the pages are in the base language (the
directory they are copied from).

bob.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Etan Wexler" <ewexler@stickdog.com>
To: <www-international@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Defining the language of a document


> Paul Deuter wrote:
>
> > We give the user the chance to select their preferred language.
>  This
> > is because we do not expect that all users will have their browsers
> > properly configured for language.  We do [...] recognize the
> > [Accept-Language] header - but we only use it for
> > the initial page.
>
> I think that your approach is wise given the defects of common
> user agents.  However, I would also care for an unobtrusive
> note linked to instructions on best modifying common user agents.
>  For example: "Selecting a language for this Web site...".
>
> > We segregate language files in different directories, using the
> ISO 639-1
> > two character language identifier as the directory name. [...]
> > we can then support new languages by simply
> > copying an existing folder and renaming it.
>
> Do you mean that one could copy a directory whose contents
> are, say, Urdu, and that changing the directory name
> would magically translate Urdu to, say, Finnish?
>
> > Many HTML tags support the LANG attribute.  This is a good
> > way to inform the browser the language of the text.
>
> Browsers are not the only software components that can
> use language identification.  Spiders can put language
> identification to good use.
>
> What's more, the 'lang' attributes can be used in combination
> with style sheets to include multiple languages in a document
> but render only one.
>
> > A more important piece of information for the browser
> is character set.
> > [One can] send an HTML META tag with the ContentType,
> which works most of
> > the time.  I have found, however, that the META tag is not
> 100% effective.
>
> Indeed, is any grotesque kludge 100% effective?
>
> --
> Etan Wexler
>

Received on Friday, 28 December 2001 05:09:26 UTC