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

Ian Hickson, Wed, 7 Apr 2010 05:38:59 +0000 (UTC):
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Actually, this is not what the spec says, is it? The spec says that 
>> every time the content attribute contains a comma separated list of 
>> language tags, then the content attribute contains a comma character, 
>> and would be ignored?
> Oh, yes, good point. 

Thanks for confirming.

> I forgot we changed that recently (in response to i18n feedback, IIRC).

If by "i18n feedback", you refer to the I18N WG, then it seems like the 
I18N WG based its response on the same incorrect representation of what 
the spec says as you did yourself: [1]

… the algorithm just above this text now allows for treatment of a 
comma-separated list of values in determining the pragma-set default 
language …

> It doesn't affect the points made by the change 
> proposal, though, only a few of the side details.

I don't know if I agree. Firstly, it seems like we have a very 
uninformed debate were we are only talking past each others. Basing the 
debate on facts which aren't facts isn't good.

Secondly: this change *does* complicate things. Basically, it has the 
same issues that I described for the empty string, only even more 

Today, 30% of the current marked uses a browser (Firefox) which 
"understands" a comma separated list. [2] But both Firefox and the 
remaining 70% agrees that even when it contains a list, the last 
occurring META declaration is the end point. By requiring that they all 
start to listen for what the server has to say each time the 
declaration contains a list, we will - in the transition period to this 
model - get a true mess.



leif halvard silli

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 13:23:11 UTC