- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:37:30 +0200
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, addison@lab126.com, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>
Richard Ishida, Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:47:50 +0100: [...] > 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. I expect it to be confusing that it suddenly is no danger if fallback language kicks in from server, whereas there is a big danger if it kicks in from http-equiv. The pedagogical way would be to treat both issues as equally problematic. The simple way to explain Content-Language vs @lang to content authors is already present today: Emphasize that the semantics of Content-Language differ from those of @lang, *regardless* of whether it comes from pragma or from HTTP. Since they are different, there is *therefore* no guarantee that Content-Language was used with the purpose of setting the language. And *therefore* the validator should warn. But it should only warn whenever the fallback effect kicks in. And it should warn *also* when the fallback kicks in from the server. Validation example: 1. If root element lacks @lang attribute - validator checks the pragma 2. If pragma contains single value - validator emits a fallback language warning If pragma contains multiple values - then proceed to HTTP header if any 3. If HTTP header contains single value - validator emits a fallback language warning If HTTP header contains multiple values - nothing happens. This is what my change proposal now says. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages Leif H Silli >> -----Original Message----- >Leif Halvard Silli 29 April 2010 14:40 >> 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 Friday, 30 April 2010 04:38:06 UTC