Re: meta content-language

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