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 19:02:15 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PxOeF-00021E-CB@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #17 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-09 19:02:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)

> However, I actually think that we need to push for resolution of ISSUE-88
> before worrying about the content-language meta in the polyglot document, since
> the current behaviour of content-language meta is currently under doubt.


However, I wanted to ask 2 questions  regarding comment #9:

> The prescribed way according to
> the XML spec is to use the xml:lang attribute, and this is what XML processors
> such as XSLT expect to find for their functions. 

QUESTION 1: Are XML processors, such as XSLT, required to react to HTTP
Content-Language (coming from the web server), at all? 

I'll answer myself: they are not! This is pretty obvious because
Content-Language is not meant to affect the language of the document .... Hence
we must conclude that it isn't only http-equiv="Content-Language" that is
dangerous when it comes to Polyglot Markup, but even Content-Language coming
from the HTTP server. (And in my Change Proposal for ISSUE-88, I did therefore
also speak about the HTTP server.)

CONCLUSION: Thus, we must realize that, on the HTML side, the language can be
affected even by HTTP. (HTML5 does not attempt to regulate HTTP ...)

QUESTION 2: Thus, perhaps we can ignore ISSUE-88 and simply make it REQUIRED to
use xml:lang/lang in polyglot markup?

Because, that is the only practical way to become immune against the HTTP
effect.  Keep in mind, then that the attribute could be empty:

<html xml:lang="" lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >

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 19:02:17 UTC

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