- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 10:04:48 +0100
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> We can make the pragma entirely non-conforming instead of conforming > with a warning, if that would help. I have indeed been coming to the same conclusion over the past week, and I discussed it with i18n folks on Wednesday and got no major objections (though the i18n Chair, Addison, wasn't in the discussion, so I don't know his view yet - and he's on vacation for another 10 days). Fwiw, I still think that meta CL actually *ought* to be used for in-document metadata, and allow language setting for element content only as a fallback (sorry about that). As such it also, on the face of it, provides a better approach in my mind than RDFa, microformats, etc approaches, since it is a single, known construct that we can standardise on. HOWEVER.... It has always proved to be a point of confusion for authors as to what its actual role is, and as I see it that confusion is only set to continue. In addition, the fact that usage is migrating to include an alternative mechanism for defining what the lang attribute already does (and the lang attribute does so much better) doesn't help matters, particularly since attempts to clarify how it should work lead to significant complexities (which are actually unnecessary if lang is used as it should be). In addition, we can find alternative ways to specify language metadata internally to a document, where needed. Therefore I'm inclined to think that deprecating its use by authors by making it non-conforming, would be the best solution. It would certainly significantly simplify the explanations of how authors should declare language information in HTML as we go forward. RI ============ Richard Ishida Internationalization Lead W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) http://www.w3.org/International/ http://rishida.net/
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 09:05:22 UTC