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

[I'm currently trying to spend time with my family, so I am not planning to
read this thread in detail until after Easter, but I scanned it and saw the
request for tests.]

We have a bunch of tests at http://www.w3.org/International/tests and indeed
there are some tests related to this topic, with some results dating from
browser versions that were around in the middle of last year:

http://www.w3.org/International/tests/list-html-css#langdecl

For the results, see here (particularly the section, Declarations containing
multiple languages):

http://www.w3.org/International/tests/tests-html-css/tests-language-declarat
ions/results-language-declarations

Hope that helps,
RI



============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Maciej Stachowiak
> Sent: 03 April 2010 19:21
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Leif Halvard Silli; Ian Hickson; public-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II)
> 
> 
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > On 03.04.2010 18:17, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 3, 2010, at 3:35 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Do you have a test case that demonstrates this? Seems like that
> >> would be
> >> a useful addition to the discussion.
> >
> > I agree that to see a test case would be nice.
> >
> > That being said, that should apply to Ian's original claim as well,
> > right?
> 
> A test case demonstrating UA behavior in this case would be very
> useful at this point, regardless of who provides it or what behavior
> it actually shows. The reason I asked Leif is that prior to his post,
> it seemed the actual UA behavior was not in question.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2788 - Release Date: 04/03/10
> 19:32:00

Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 09:33:33 UTC