- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:23:03 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >> It's called "http-equiv" for a reason. Using it is equivalent to >> having "Content-Language: ru" in the HTTP response, thus it applies to >> the whole document. > > > Actually, we discuss a secondary use. Hence this is not at all given. > The way Ian describes it, if we have this code: > > <!-- Still in English! --><DOCTYPE html > > <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="ru" > > <html lang="en" > > > Then the META element only speaks about the HTML comment /outside/ > <html/>. Very cryptic, if you ask me. But consistent with the existing specs. > Thus, the current draft opens up the possibility that the document > actually isn't aimed at a Russian audience at all. It could be that the > person who created the Web page only wanted to specify the language of > those comments he placed outside <html />. I don't believe this is a change from HTML4. > The very idea that @http-equiv can specify the language of something > @lang cannot specify /in itself/ opens for this misuse. You call it misuse, I'd consider it an edge case. > If there actually is a need for specifying the language of a HTML > comment outside <html/> (I did not know that comments inherited the > language of its parent actually), then this should be linked to > something else. Again, it's an edge case, so why invent something new? > Ian said he was open to disallow http-equiv="content-language", and so I That would "break" pages that have http-equiv="content-language" *only*. (whatever "break" means in this context...) > guess that he either doesn't see any real need for specifying the > language of such comments, or that he has an alternative proposal. But > why not let <html lang=""> decide? BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:23:54 UTC