W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: Regarding update of language declaration tests (I81NWG)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:17:05 +0200
To: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100419181705146696.3091ce68@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Leif Halvard Silli, Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:38:49 +0200:
> CE Whitehead, Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:19:15 -0400:
>> Leif Halvard Silli,  Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:45:31 +0200
>> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language

> Thanks for the pointer. Since XHTML5 and HTML5 support the empty 
> string, the consequence of the advice in that article, must be that one 
> should *not* use "und" in XHTML5 and HTMl5.

Btw, the article states that 

On the very rare occasion when the whole document is in an undefined 
language it is better to just not declare the default language of the 

However, this advice does not help the slightest, if the user agent is 
inheriting a language from the Content-Language HTTP header or the 
HTTP-EQUIV meta element. Which is why I think that the semantics of an 

 <meta http-equiv="Content-Langauge conten="<the_empty_string">

should remain as it is today, in all user agents except Mozilla: 
Firstly, it causes the user agent to not search for a fallback language 
in the HTTP header. Secondly, it has the semantics of not defining any 

More or less as expressed in my Change Proposal for HTML5. [1] (And 
that Change Proposal also links to some of the test cases, you asked 
about, CE.)


leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 16:17:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:31 UTC