- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:41:03 +0100
- To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, ishida@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch
CE Whitehead, Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:02:40 -0500: > I like Leif's solution--to use the first language specified in http > as the text processing language when none is specified in the html > tag. Perhaps this is something you could live with as well, Ian? Otherwise, if at least one more person agrees, then I will formally write a change proposal which permits 'http-equiv="Content-Language"' to contain more than one language, but only when the root element uses the @lang attribute. Leif H Silli > From: Leif Halvard Silli <> > Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:57:09 +0100 >> Ian Hickson, Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:39:08 +0000 (UTC): >>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: .... >>>> As a result, the HTML5 spec best should just say that <meta http-equiv >>>> is used primarily as meta-information on the server side and is >>>> therefore in general ignored on the client side. >>> >>> It's not ignored on the client side in practice. > >> Yes it is. As long as you use the @lang attribute, then META >> content-langauge has no effect. Hence servers should be free to use it >> as they want = according to the HTTP specs. > >> So, hereby I propose a compromise solution: > >> If the HTML document *doesn't* use the @lang attribute on the root >> element, then the content-language pragma is forbidden from containing >> more than one language tag - and this language tag will also define the >> language of the document. > >> However, if the document does use the @lang attribute on the root >> element, then authors are free to use 'http-equiv="Content-Language"' >> for what it is meant for according to HTTP. > I like this solution. [...] -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 02:41:48 UTC