RE: ISSUE-88 content-language: informal consensus check

> Otherwise, what Addison says on behalf of the I18N WG, does not hold
> true: making Content-Language non-conforming will *not*, quote:
> "eliminate the confusing (and not useful) overlap in language
> declaration".

As we go forward, I expect it to remove confusion  about how the
Content-Language meta relates to the language attribute, and how the
Content-Language meta relates to the HTTP header - which I believe is where
pretty much all the confusion lies.  

I expect it to be *much* easier to explain to content authors: You set the
language of the content using the language attribute. Oh and btw if for some
reason you fail to do this, the browser may go look at *other* information,
ie. the metadata in the http header, to see if it can guess at a language.

RI

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

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




> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Leif Halvard Silli
> Sent: 29 April 2010 14:40
> To: Maciej Stachowiak
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; addison@lab126.com
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-88 content-language: informal consensus check
> 
> Like the I18N WG, I have changed my mind - and have been revising my
> change proposal to reflect this. In essence, I now support the I18N
> WG's original proposal, which, in effect (on the spec) basically is
> identical with what Julian and Roy is saying.
> 
> Otherwise, what Addison says on behalf of the I18N WG, does not hold
> true: making Content-Language non-conforming will *not*, quote:
> "eliminate the confusing (and not useful) overlap in language
> declaration".
> 
> Making the META content-language non-conforming, will only move the
> "confusion" one step higher up. Because, the HTML5 spec is clear on the
> fact that HTML5 conforming user agents will inherit the language from
> the server whenever there isn't whether a @lang attribute nor a META
> content-language element.
> 
> Leif Halvard Silli
> 
> Maciej Stachowiak, Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:09:42 -0700:
> >
> > Since the I18N WG endorses this Change Proposal, and the editor also
> > agrees, I'd like to hear if anyone else would object to this as a
> > resolution to ISSUE-88. If no one objects, the Chairs will seek to
> > close this issue by amicable resolution. If there are objections,
> > then we will seek some other way to resolve this issue promptly, such
> > as using a survey.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Maciej
> >
> > On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:12 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> >
> >> On 9 April 2010, Ian Hickson proposed [1] a solution to Issue-88
> >> that said in part:
> >>
> >> --
> >> SUMMARY
> >> People are confused by the Content-Language pragma, so it should be
> made
> >> non-conforming.
> >> --
> >>
> >> The Internationalization Core WG has officially endorsed this
> >> proposed solution [2]. Existing, legacy documents (and non-browser
> >> processes that use this markup) will not be harmed by this solution
> >> while this will eliminate the confusing (and not useful) overlap in
> >> language declaration.
> >>
> >> (for I18N Core),
> >>
> >> Addison
> >>
> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0308.html
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/04/21-core-minutes.html#item04
> >>
> >> Addison Phillips
> >> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
> >> Chair -- W3C Internationalization WG
> >>
> >> Internationalization is not a feature.
> >> It is an architecture.
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2841 - Release Date: 04/28/10
> 19:27:00

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 14:48:27 UTC