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 
document.
[[

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 
empty 

 <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 
language.

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.)

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 April 2010 16:17:50 GMT