W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > March 2011

[Bug 10152] [polyglot] i18n comment 5 : Mention lang and xml:lang

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:00:54 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PxLok-00009W-8s@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-09 16:00:52 UTC ---
I can see - I agree - that the wording

]] Whenever the http-equiv="content-language" attribute on the <meta> element
specifies the language of the root element, [[

could be made clearer.  My proposal to Eliot is that the word 'specifies' is
replacd with 'affects'.

The point was to say that when the <meta> content-language causes HTML-parsers
to  _perceive_ a language, _then_ one MUST declare the language of the

Richard, if you think that http-equiv="content-language" should be forbidden to
use in polyglot markup, then it would be consistent to require that Polyglot
Markup says that polyglot markup does not contain <meta>

However, the purpose of <meta> http-equiv="content-language" is not to specify
the language of the document, whether in HTML5 or in XML. The purpose is to
specify who the language audience is  - et cetera et cetera.

If HTML5 had considered the <meta> http-equiv="content-language" as a method
for specifying the language of the document, then we could say that it is
forbidden in polyglot markup, as it does not specify the language in XML.

But HTML5, in my reading, only acknowledges that <meta>
http-equiv="content-language" *affects* the language under certain conditions,
and requires UAs to let it affect the language in a uniform way.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2011 16:00:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC