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

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

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 13:19:23 +0200
Message-ID: <4BE3F73B.70904@lachy.id.au>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org
On 2010-05-07 13:05, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 07.05.2010 11:34, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> For this issue, we have 3 options presented:
>>
>> 1. Make Content-Language non-conforming.
>> 2. Leave Content-Language as Obsolete but Conforming, permitting only a
>> single language tag. (Current spec)
>> 3. Leave Content-Language as Obsolete but Conforming, permitting a comma
>> separated list of language tags.
>> ...
>
> Another alternative is to leave it alone (it's conformant in HTML4,
> isn't it?).

It's not at all clear what you mean by "leave it alone", and I'm not 
sure what relevance HTML4 has in this context.  Do you mean to leave it 
as is in the current HTML5 spec (option #2)?  Or do you mean to define 
it as it was defined in HTML4: provide a vague hint about permitting any 
HTTP header field to be used in http-equiv without defining the 
permitted content attribute values or processing requirements?

Given the clear explanation I gave for why even #3 is not a reasonable 
solution, why would that be any more acceptable?  What use case would it 
address and or what problem would it actually solve?

-- 
Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software
http://lachy.id.au/
http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 11:19:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 May 2010 11:19:55 GMT