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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:00:45 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Q1mDV-0000fx-QM@jessica.w3.org>

--- 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

The HTML5 Change Proposal that the chairs adopted
does not affect how user agents, according HTML5, are going to treat it.

See my explantion here: 

> 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:
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

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