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

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

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 03:21:57 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100508032157396565.6c9ccd04@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Julian Reschke, Fri, 07 May 2010 13:05:31 +0200:
> On 07.05.2010 11:34, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
>> On 2010-05-05 20:22, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> Let multiple language tags continue to be legal.
>>> (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages)
>> 
>> This is a response to the arguments put forth in both that change
>> proposal, the the change proposal from the i18n WG. Both proposals
>> present similarly flawed arguments, and so I will refute them together.
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Htmlissue88
>> 
>> 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?).

The 'Let multiple language tags continue to be legal' proposal *does* 
leave it - if not alone, then at least it leaves it as in HTML4, syntax 
wise. 
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 8 May 2010 01:22:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 8 May 2010 01:22:33 GMT