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@[]>

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:35 UTC