Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II)

Ian Hickson, Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC):
> The same change proposal also suggests a second change, namely to change 
> the syntax to allow multiple comma-separated language codes, even though 
> all but the first would be ignored.
> User agents do not pay any attention to values after the first.

Incorrect: Except Mozilla browsers (which looks at *all* the language 
tags in the list), user agents do not pay attention to <meta> 
content-language at all when it contains a comma-separated list.

> Even if there was such a need, this feature would be a bad way to provide 
> that information, since it is used in an incompatible way by user agents 
> (the first language, and only the first language, is used to determine 
> processing behaviour -- none of the languages are treated as a target 
> audience language hint).

Some incorrectness. Se note above.

> * Ensures consistency with current implementation usage of the content 
> attribute in the Content Language pragma and with earlier specifications.

Given the incorrectness above, about how UAs use <meta> c-l with 
multiple language tags, the null change proposal fails to have the 
effect of providing consistency with "current implementation usage". As 
for consistency with earlier specifications: That can be verified as 
untrue by looking at *the* earlier specification, HTML4. (Not to talk 
about the HTTP spec.)

That makes up four incorrect claims. I don't think that the WG should 
be asked to vote for something which can be easily documented as 
incorrect claims.

leif halvard silli

Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 10:35:57 UTC