W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Beta: Fatal Error: No DOCTYPE specified!

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:21:25 +0200
To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <a01060005-1021-925A8492E84611D6AC5400039300CF5C@[193.157.66.10]>

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

>>>[...] I don't see a good reason to ignore XHTML 1.0's "Use both the
>>>lang and xml:lang attributes when specifying the language of an
>>>element" and thereby advertising "incompatible" markup.
>>
>>Hmmm. Do me a favour and play devil's advocate for a moment. What are
>>the _downsides_ to including both?
>
>Downsides of redundancy? Well, waste of octets? If you care about that,
>you could send the "Content-Language" HTTP header but there is an actual
>downside that it is unspecified, whether XML documents inherit the
>language from the HTTP header or not.

I have a bit too much on my mind to cope with keeping this concept
completely in my mind (it's a murky and cluttered place ;D). I have this
vague feeling that I didn't want to put "lang" in there because it might be
confusing and encourage the use of a deprecated attribute. Can you think of
any rational objections such as that against including it?

Otherwise I'll update the example to include it later today.

(
  IOW, you've sold me on the change and now I'm asking you to come up
  with arguments to dissuade me from doing what you want me to do.
  Ain't I a stinker? :-)
)

-- 
My mom is a professional botanist, or, as her spousal equivalent described
it, they'll be out hiking in the woods, she'll see a plant off by the side
of the trail, run up to it, bend down, and start talking Latin at it.
                                                      -- Steve VanDevender
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 14:21:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:04 GMT