RE: ISSUE-88 / Re: what's the language of a document ?

Hi, Leif, all.

 

I agree with Leif that, for handling of multiple meta elements, 
the w3c can retroactively align its standards to practice,
by making the last meta element the one that is valid, 
in the case that multiple are specified 
(I believe that this is more in line with the w3c's  standards for style codes
anyway;  the last style declaration that applies to an element is the one that is processed;
all others are ignored, right?).

 

* * * Below is some disagreement sorry for it maybe I am wrong * * *


My two cents on having two meta-elements:  if one of these is omitted, which processes will the remaining element be used for? (This has to be specified.)

 
Also, we still have the html lang= and xml lang= elements/attributes in any case!

 

So you suggest the html and xml lang attributes plus two meta elements plus an http header?


Also, as the meta is only a fallback for when those are not specified I am not sure we need two anyway

(I need convincing; to me this is a case where aligning w3c specifications to the current practice --

using the first language specified by http or meta content-language to populate  the 
lang= attribute in the html or xml tag, as has been discussed previously --

makes sense).

 

Finally, will someone who ignores the html or xml lang =  successfully use the two meta elements? Keeping data in the right order?


My personal opinion is that they (he, she, whoever) can just as well learn to use the html / xml lang attributes as they (he, she, whoever) can learn to insert an additional meta element.

 

(I am not always for aligning w3c specifications to current practice: I still want a way to specify two document or audience languages where content is truly mixed, but not two meta elements.


The http headers and the meta elements have been the designated places for this.


I need more explanation, I guess; but I don't think I would support two meta content-language elements.  

On another note:  I do hope that someday additional meta data -- such as whether a document is a translation or an original, etc. -- will be available, however -- this has been discussed before by others.)


Thanks.

Best,
--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar@hotmail.com
> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:52:58 +0100
> From: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
> To: ian@hixie.ch
> CC: addison@amazon.com; cewcathar@hotmail.com; www-international@w3.org; public-html@w3.org; ishida@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-88 / Re: what's the language of a document ?
> 
> I have written an alternative to the change proposal from the I18N 
> WG.[1] This change proposal takes in the issues related to Bug 9263 and 
> 9264. I hope that both Ian and the I18N WG also will consider the 
> issues that I try to solve with this proposal, so that we can come to a 
> consensus. Input is very welcome.
> 
> Quoting the summary of the proposal: 
> 
> 1. The HTML4/XHTML1 language inheritance problem – solve it: HTML5 
> aligns the meaning of an empty lang="" with XML. Therefore it is 
> necessary to solve the language inheritance problems of HTML4/XHTML1.0. 
> (An empty lang="" is a syntax error in HTML4/XHTML1.1. Several browsers 
> therefore go looking e.g. in the meta Content-Language element for a 
> fallback language code.)
> 2. The HTTP issue - unconfuse it: Do not disguise these language 
> inheritance problems or create new problems (such as more confusion 
> w.r.t. HTTP) by aligning the pragma content-language with lang=""
> 3. The default language issue when multiple languages are set – define 
> anew or drop it: We should either drop the idea about having rules for 
> how to inherit language from the meta content-langauge element when it 
> contains more than one language. Or we should define a new way to do 
> so. Proposed solution to the latter: Specify that one may provide two 
> meta content-language elements, where the first will (eventually) be 
> used by HTTP, and the latter will be used by the parser. (All browsers 
> that looks at the meta content-language element look at the last meta 
> content-language element, only.) This solution is also what is needed 
> to solve the language inheritance problem. 
> 4. The first or the last meta content-language element? Give up the 
> idea which is currently in the spec, that user agents should look at 
> the first meta content-language element - currently they ALL look at 
> the last element. (This fourth point is not a crucial part of this 
> proposal, but it seems more aligned with reality.)
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage
> 
> Leif Halvard Silli, Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:45:42 +0100:
> > Two bugs have been filed, that relates to this issue:
> > 
> > Bug 9263: Incorrect language determination algorithm
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9263
> > 
> > ("Incorrect" is perhaps too strong - but at least it
> > is imprecise.)
> > 
> > Bug 9264: Provide a way to prevent Content-Language from acting
> > as language fallback
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9264
> > 
> > Related: replies to Addison Phillips [1][2] and to C.E. Whitehead [3].
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0324
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0331
> > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Mar/0325
> -- 
> leif halvard silli