- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 12:35:10 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson, Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:54:23 +0000 (UTC): […] > RATIONALE […] > 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. […] > POSITIVE EFFECTS > * 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