- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:45:39 -0400
- To: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: <ishida@w3.org>, <ian@hixie.ch>, <martin.kliehm@namics.com>, <cowan@ccil.org>, <public-html@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU109-W2533852D3C5847B4EC2D55B3B50@phx.gbl>
Hi! I am sorry; I reread Richard Ishida's post and I finally, finally went to the URL he posted and read about the meta element and the http headers in html 5
(in http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#attr-meta-http-equiv), and I do not have a disagreement with Richard Ishida's post so much as a question!
Currently, and priot to html 5, the meta element, when it is identified as http-equiv is equivalent to the http header. And is used the same way. But not otherwise.
It seems however that in html 5 that the meta element specification of content-language is being done away with in favor of the html lang= tag; is that right??:
"Conformance checkers will include a warning if this pragma is used. Authors are encouraged to use the lang attribute instead."
And further,
"This pragma is not exactly equivalent to the HTTP Content-Language header, for instance it only supports one language. [HTTP]"
If so, this is the second text is the text that I am objecting to; and perhaps both--for example, I'd prefer "Conformance Checkers" to simply warn people that the meta element is best used to specify the audience language not the text-processing language.
Sorry that I had not read the draft and that I did not make myself clear originally!
From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:38:29 +0900
Message-ID: <4AEA51A5.3080801@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
CC: ishida@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch, simonp@opera.com, divya.manian@gmail.com, martin.kliehm@namics.com, cowan@ccil.org, public-html@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
On 2009/10/30 3:47, CE Whitehead wrote:
> I personally tend to agree with Roy Fielding, John Cowan, and Tex Texin actually, and not with Martin and Richard Ishida because I regulary create documents in two languages (French-English; French-Old French); following Richard Ishida's recommendations in "Specifying Languages in XHTML and HTML Content," I list all the languages in the meta content tag (when I have access to it; because my documents are generally served from a locale I don't control, I don't have access to the http headers). I still set the html language to one or the other when possible and then if I get time specify additional information in relevant elements).
I'm sorry, but can you please explain where Richard and I differ from
Roy/John/Tex?
Sorry!
the issue for me was Ian Hickson's comment (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2009OctDec/0023.html) that:
"I've updated the spec to say that when the higher-level protocol reports
multiple languages, they are all ignored in favour of the default
(unknown)."
I did reread Richard Ishida's post--and actually; he does not seem to say that we need to do away with all
differences between the http header, the meta content tag, and the html tag so I must have misread him the first time through--
in fact, there's nothing he said that I disagree with, so sorry.
>It could be that we have very minor differences of how we
>have expressed ourselves, but I think we all agree that HTML5 has to be
>changed to treat the Content-Language: HTTP response header and the
>corresponding <meta> "pragma" the same way.
Agreed
>> I think there will always be cases where people will not tag a document correctly; if a tag is needed it makes no sense to eliminate it because someone cannot yet use it properly.
>I have to say that I slightly prefer ignoring multiple values in
>Content-Language: or the corresponding "pragma" to taking the first
>value for the default language, but that's a minor issue.
Fine, if it's a minor issue . . . and it's all up to the applications in the end anyway how they will handle things!
> And I think that Tex makes a point too--someone might specify a document language as fr-FR and fr-LU but not fr-CA and it makes no sense to default to unknown.
> . . .
> As for the "fr-FR and fr-LU but not fr-CA" example, using "fr" as a
> default may seem obvious to some, but then that would include "fr-CA",
> which the author actually didn't include. So just using "fr" would
> actually be wrong.
Agreed, Canadian French is unique.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
> Regards, Martin.
--
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 02:39:
--_042d4e28-4b0e-4aa6-b58a-1a5687dba7f1_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR><EM><BR></EM>Hi! I am sorry; I reread Richard Ishida's post and I finally, finally went to the URL he posted and read about the meta element and the http headers in html 5<BR>(in <A href="http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#attr-meta-http-equiv">http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/semantics.html#attr-meta-http-equiv</A>), and I do not have a disagreement with Richard Ishida's post so much as a question!<BR>
<BR>
Currently, and priot to html 5, the meta element, when it is identified as http-equiv is equivalent to the http header. And is used the same way. But not otherwise.<BR>It seems however that in html 5 that the meta element specification of content-language is being done away with in favor of the html lang= tag; is that right??:<BR>"Conformance checkers will include a warning if this pragma is used. Authors are encouraged to use the lang attribute instead."<BR>
And further,<BR>"This pragma is not exactly equivalent to the HTTP Content-Language header, for instance it only supports one language. [HTTP]"<BR>
<BR> <BR>
If so, this is the second text is the text that I am objecting to; and perhaps both--for example, I'd prefer "Conformance Checkers" to simply warn people that the meta element is best used to specify the audience language not the text-processing language. <BR>
Sorry that I had not read the draft and that I did not make myself clear originally!<BR>From: Martin J. Dürst <<A href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</A>> <BR>Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:38:29 +0900<BR>Message-ID: <<A href="mailto:4AEA51A5.3080801@it.aoyama.ac.jp">4AEA51A5.3080801@it.aoyama.ac.jp</A>> <BR>To: CE Whitehead <<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A>> <BR>CC: <A href="mailto:ishida@w3.org">ishida@w3.org</A>, <A href="mailto:ian@hixie.ch">ian@hixie.ch</A>, <A href="mailto:simonp@opera.com">simonp@opera.com</A>, <A href="mailto:divya.manian@gmail.com">divya.manian@gmail.com</A>, <A href="mailto:martin.kliehm@namics.com">martin.kliehm@namics.com</A>, <A href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</A>, <A href="mailto:public-html@w3.org">public-html@w3.org</A>, <A href="mailto:www-international@w3.org">www-international@w3.org</A> <BR>
On 2009/10/30 3:47, CE Whitehead wrote:<BR>> I personally tend to agree with Roy Fielding, John Cowan, and Tex Texin actually, and not with Martin and Richard Ishida because I regulary create documents in two languages (French-English; French-Old French); following Richard Ishida's recommendations in "Specifying Languages in XHTML and HTML Content," I list all the languages in the meta content tag (when I have access to it; because my documents are generally served from a locale I don't control, I don't have access to the http headers). I still set the html language to one or the other when possible and then if I get time specify additional information in relevant elements).<BR>
I'm sorry, but can you please explain where Richard and I differ from <BR>Roy/John/Tex? <BR>Sorry!<BR>the issue for me was Ian Hickson's comment (<A href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2009OctDec/0023.html">http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2009OctDec/0023.html</A>) that:<BR>
"I've updated the spec to say that when the higher-level protocol reports <BR>multiple languages, they are all ignored in favour of the default <BR>(unknown)."<BR>I did reread Richard Ishida's post--and actually; he does not seem to say that we need to do away with all <BR>differences between the http header, the meta content tag, and the html tag so I must have misread him the first time through--<BR>in fact, there's nothing he said that I disagree with, so sorry.<BR>>It could be that we have very minor differences of how we <BR>>have expressed ourselves, but I think we all agree that HTML5 has to be <BR>>changed to treat the Content-Language: HTTP response header and the <BR>>corresponding <meta> "pragma" the same way.<BR>Agreed<BR>>> I think there will always be cases where people will not tag a document correctly; if a tag is needed it makes no sense to eliminate it because someone cannot yet use it properly.<BR>
>I have to say that I slightly prefer ignoring multiple values in <BR>>Content-Language: or the corresponding "pragma" to taking the first <BR>>value for the default language, but that's a minor issue.<BR>
Fine, if it's a minor issue . . . and it's all up to the applications in the end anyway how they will handle things!<BR>
> And I think that Tex makes a point too--someone might specify a document language as fr-FR and fr-LU but not fr-CA and it makes no sense to default to unknown.<BR>> . . .<BR>
> As for the "fr-FR and fr-LU but not fr-CA" example, using "fr" as a <BR>> default may seem obvious to some, but then that would include "fr-CA", <BR>> which the author actually didn't include. So just using "fr" would <BR>> actually be wrong.<BR>Agreed, Canadian French is unique.<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR>
> Regards, Martin.<BR>
<BR>-- <BR>#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University<BR>#-# <A href="http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp">http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp</A> <A href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp">mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</A><BR>Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 02:39:<BR> </body>
</html>
--_042d4e28-4b0e-4aa6-b58a-1a5687dba7f1_--
Received on Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:46:15 UTC