- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:20:55 -0400
- To: <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: <ishida@w3.org>, <www-international@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <SNT142-w5600493544F287364790AEB31C0@phx.gbl>
Hi. Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:10:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Phillips, Addison wrote: >> > >> > It was not an oversight. >> >> The Internationalization working group maintains that, for compatibility >> with existing documents, authoring practice, and non-browser tools and >> user-agents, the existing syntax of HTML <meta> Content-Language really >> MUST be preserved. > The existing syntax of HTML <meta> Content-Language as defined by HTML4 > doesn't match what you are proposing. HTML4 says that this feature is for > use by servers, not user agents. O.k.; 'for compatibility with existing documents . . . and non-browser tools and servers' then > The existing syntax of HTML <meta> Content-Language as defined by legacy > implementations doesn't match what you are proposing. User agents only > look at the first language, and do not support multiple languages. > The existing syntax of HTML <meta> Content-Language as defined by existing > documents doesn't match what you are proposing. The only effect the pragma > has in legacy documents is the effect exposed by user agents, which only > look at the first language. > Non-browser tools and user agents are not affected by the changes you are > suggesting, since those changes do not affect the user agent requirements. > Changing conformance requirements for authors has no effect on existing > documents and non-browser tools and user-agents. This leaves authoring > practices, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that we want to > preserve those authoring practices, since those authoring practices are > effectively wasting author time: there's no point authors providing > multiple languages if user agents then ignore all but the first. Hmm. Possibly so. All the same I would leave that up to the authors -- and just tell them what most user agents and servers are currently doing. > Therefore IMHO the argument you are making above does not make sense given > the change proposal you are suggesting. > I would be interested to know which non-browser tools and user agents you > specifically had in mind, by the way. If there really are tools that are > affected by this, then we should change the user agent requirements to > match what they do. What tools are these? > . . . > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:25:07 -0000 > Can you share this evidence? If people really are learning how to use this > pragma, that changes matters significantly. I do remember that Richard Ishida mentioned some (in hs 12 March email, reprinted here below): From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:35:02 -0000 > I looked but was unable to find the slides I remember seeing at a conference > - they showed trends in usage of lang vs pragma for declaring the language > of the document - ie. it was showing that people appear to be declaring the > language of content at the element level (not metadata) in the right way. Best, C. E. Whitehead cewcathar@hotmail.com
Received on Friday, 2 April 2010 02:21:41 UTC