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

RE: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)

From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 17:28:41 -0400
Message-ID: <SNT142-w4918650F6E421918E67993B3F50@phx.gbl>
To: <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: <public-html@w3.org>, <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>, <ian@hixie.ch>

Hi! Leif I am o.k. with Fantasai's suggestions -- except that I do feel it would be nice to, when possible, have validators warn content authors what the default (fallback) text processing language will be when none is declared in the html tag.

 

The rest of the comments you suggested may have been superfluous.

 

I do of course realize that sometimes it varies from browser to browser which language will be the fallback.

 

Re: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)
From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:00:36 -0700
> To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 
> CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 
> On 05/05/2010 11:22 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>
>> Updated change proposal:
>>
>> Let multiple language tags continue to be legal.
>> (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages)
>>
>> ...
> I agree completely with the intention of this change proposal. I have,
> however, some comments on the specific text changes:
>> == Details ==
>> Proposed spec changes, to section [4.2.5.3 Pragma directives]:
> I recommend also adding some explanation of what this pragma does, since
> it is completely unclear from this section what its purpose is.
> I suggest changing this sentence:
>      # This pragma sets the <dfn>pragma-set default language</dfn>.
> To something like this:
>      | This pragma sets the <dfn>pragma-set audience language</dfn>,
>      | which, if present, must <q>describe the natural language(s) of the
>      | intended audience of the document</q>. [HTTP] It can also be _consulted
>      | as a fallback_ [link to fallback paragraph in 3.2.3.3] when other
>      | content language information is not available. However authors should
>      | use the _lang_ attribute on the root element, not this pragma or its
>      | corresponding HTTP header, to set the document's primary language.
> And adjusting other occurrences of "pragma-set default language" as necessary.
>> Replace the following text
>>    # Note: Conformance checkers will include a warning if this pragma is
>>    # used. Authors are encouraged to use the @lang attribute instead.[HTTP]
>>
>> with the following
>>    | Note: The semantics of this pragma, as well as of the HTTP
>>    | Content-Language header, are different from the semantics of the @lang
>>    | attribute. [HTTP]
> This part of the note makes sense to be here, although with a better
> explanation of the pragma's purpose, may no longer be necessary.
>>    | Thus, there is no guarantee that the author consciously used either
>>    | of them for setting the language. Therefore, conformance checkers
>>    | will include a warning, whenever HTML5ís fallback language algorithm
>>    | is activated, whether it is the higher protocol or
>>    | this pragma that kicks in. Authors are informed about which language
>>    | the document falls back to, and are encouraged to not rely on the
>>    | fallback feature but to instead explicitly use the @lang attribute on
>>    | the root element.
> However, I think this explanation belongs in the fallback section, not
> here. I'm also not convinced it belongs in the spec at all. I'd rather
> see a simple normative statement in the fallback paragraph that conformance
> checkers should/must emit a warning when the fallback is triggered.
> The explanation here is otherwise superfluous.
Hmm, I think it's perhaps helpful to let content developers know which language 
might be used as the 'fallback' language -- out of any languages they have specified 
-- that is, when it's clear what the fallback language will be; otherwise there should be a statement saying that the fallback is not clear --as, in fact what the fallback will be depends in part on the browser;
so I don't agree completely with Fantasai here.
>> After the following text,
>>    # the content attribute must have a value consisting of a valid BCP
>>    # 47 language tag
>
>> then add the following:
>>    | , or a comma separated list of two or more BCP 47 language tags
>
>> Delete the following text:
>>    # This pragma is not exactly equivalent to the HTTP Content-Language
>>    # header, for instance it only supports one language.
> I agree with the last two changes.
Ditto,  +1.
> ~fantasai
> P.S. IIRC public-html will block my reply

? 
> . . .
Best,
C. E. Whitehad
cewcathar@hotmail.com
> so you may need to quote
> it in its entirety if replying to that list
 

 		 	   		  
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 21:29:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 May 2010 21:29:17 GMT