- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:00:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10152 --- Comment #25 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-21 21:00:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #23) > If the meta content-language element is obsoleted by the spec, will the > fallback rules remain? Yes. (If by "rules" you refer to how HTML5 user agents are required to treat it.) The HTML5 Change Proposal that the chairs adopted http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0308 does not affect how user agents, according HTML5, are going to treat it. See my explantion here: http://www.w3.org/mid/20110319171903849246.ab7bc210@xn--mlform-iua.no > It doesn't seem logical to forbid use of a construct > then go on to describe how that construct affects behaviour in the browser. HTML5 forbids. But Polyglot Markup does not really forbid anything. Instead, the text in equestion *prescribes* the use of @lang/@xml:lang to avoid the trouble that HTTP/http-equiv lang causes. It makes sense, to me, to describe why Polyglot Markup has this extra rule. That's similar to how Polyglot Markup gives a reason for a few other necessities. Meanwhile the text speaks about both HTTP (which is not forbidden) and http-equiv. The problem with not mentioning http-equiv is that it gives the author a false security - he/she may think she/he is safe due to the omission of http-equiv. Whereas reality is that anyhting EXEPT the invalid http-equiv, with a *single*, *valid* language tag inside @content, will cause the UA to look inside the HTTP Content-Language: header. > Why > don't we wait a little to see how things settle before rewriting this text over > and over. The "over and over" (_excluding the very last change_ proposed in Comment #22) has nothing to do with an instable HTML5 spec. Rather it has to do with difficulty in explaining the HTML5 rules. Comment #22 proposes some small changes to the proposal madein #21. These small chanvges are a result of the HTMLwg decision in ISSUE-88. It looks to me as if ISSUE-88 has to be revisited: http://www.w3.org/mid/4D84E757.7070408@intertwingly.net So the editor could of course wait and see. However, I think it is very good if the text tries to express the current status in HTML5 - that could help us in eventually bring ISSUE-88 up again. -- 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 Monday, 21 March 2011 21:00:47 UTC