W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: meta content-language

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:45:07 -0700
Message-Id: <5CC673B9-D5B9-41E6-8282-A183C2E8D00C@gbiv.com>
Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>

On Aug 21, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> So is it your view that not only the HTML 5 draft, but even the  
> HTML 4 spec is wrong on this as well?
> From HTML 4, Section 8.1.2, Inheritance of language codes:
>    An element inherits language code information according
>    to the following order of precedence (highest to lowest):
>      * The lang attribute set for the element itself.
>      * The closest parent element that has the lang attribute
>        set (i.e., the lang attribute is inherited).
>      * The HTTP "Content-Language" header (which may be
>        configured in a server). For example:
>        Content-Language: en-cockney
>      * User agent default values and user preferences.

FTR, I don't see anything wrong with using the languages in
Content-Language as a last-gap alternative to the default when
no other in-content language processing information is present.
However, that is quite different from changing the meaning of
content-language to be about language processing.

I.e., making a correlation between the two for default processing
is reasonable because it is more likely to result in the correct
language being chosen than it would to ignore the metadata entirely.
That does not make it a replacement for lang or xml:lang.

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 22:45:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:29 UTC