Re: ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple - Straw Poll for Objections

Sam Ruby, Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:52:23 -0400:
> The poll is available here, and will run starting at midnight EDT, 
> and run through Wednesday, May 19th.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-88-objection-poll/
> 
> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
> 
> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only
> need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is
> truly strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly 
> marked objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone 
> else's objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of 
> objections, and will not be counting votes.

Great! As a response, I final-touched my "Let multiple language tags 
continue to be legal" proposal with some small details. [1] What I 
added:

* more on Risks plus an actual Negative effects section;
* some precisions;
* more direct critic of the zero-edit-proposal and the 
  totally-forbid-proposal - they are very similar - a quote:
  ]] [they offer] no carrot for doing the right thing.
    * while the fallback language effect stops as soon as the 
      author adds lang on the root element, the spec requires
      conformance checker to continue whining until the 
      http-equiv="Content-Language" meta element has been 
      removed.[[
* mentioned an important Positive effect:  
  ]] More positive: authors can get rid of the warning by adding 
     something — <html lang="*"> — this is better than a focus on
     removal of the (over all) harmless Content-Language meta
     element. [[

Happy midsummer! (Sorry to discriminate the Southern Hemisphere…)

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 00:19:32 UTC