Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Thus, the current draft opens up the possibility that the document >>> actually isn't aimed at a Russian audience at all. It could be that >>> the person who created the Web page only wanted to specify the >>> language of those comments he placed outside <html />. >> >> I don't believe this is a change from HTML4. > > There is a change here. The current draft has removed the http-equiv > functionality from the META element. This means that the author now is > "free" to use it to specify the comments outside <html/>, because he > isn't actually specifying the language preferences of his intended > audience anymore. I do agree that the current spec language that suggest that it is different from HTTP needs to be backed out (for instance, wrt multiple languages). That being said, *this* specific case seems to be in line with what previous specs said. > To use "content-language" for that purpose in HTML 4, would be a misuse. How so? Is this about the difference between meta/@http-equiv='content-language' and the Content-Language HTTP header? BR, JulianReceived on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:58:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:18 GMT