- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 02:18:58 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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