- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:00:36 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 05/05/2010 11:22 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > > Updated change proposal: > > Let multiple language tags continue to be legal. > (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages) > > == Summary == > ... > == Rationale == > 1. The current warning about using @lang instead of Content-Language > should be changed into a warning which informs that a fallback language > measure has kicked in, and recommend that authors create a language > declaration (via @lang) rather than relying on the fallback feature. > This warning should be shown regardless of whether the fallback comes > from @http-equiv or from the higher level (HTTP). Justification: Since > it is a fallback feature, and with other semantics, there is no > guarantee that the author has used it for the language effect. > > 2. To hold the syntax rules of HTTP (which permits multiple language > tags) as the conforming ones (rather than those of @lang, which forbids > multiple languages), will have the effect of underlining that @lang and > Content-Language have different purposes. For instance, since the > fallback algorithm doesn’t kick in whenever multiple languages are used > in the pragma or on the server, there would not be any warning in these > cases. > == Impact == > === Positive Effects === > ... > === Negative Effects === > ... > === Conformance Classes Changes === > ... > === Risks === > ... > == References == > ... I agree completely with the intention of this change proposal. I have, however, some comments on the specific text changes: > == Details == > Proposed spec changes, to section [4.2.5.3 Pragma directives]: I recommend also adding some explanation of what this pragma does, since it is completely unclear from this section what its purpose is. I suggest changing this sentence: # This pragma sets the <dfn>pragma-set default language</dfn>. To something like this: | This pragma sets the <dfn>pragma-set audience language</dfn>, | which, if present, must <q>describe the natural language(s) of the | intended audience of the document</q>. [HTTP] It can also be _consulted | as a fallback_ [link to fallback paragraph in 3.2.3.3] when other | content language information is not available. However authors should | use the _lang_ attribute on the root element, not this pragma or its | corresponding HTTP header, to set the document's primary language. And adjusting other occurrences of "pragma-set default language" as necessary. > Replace the following text > # Note: Conformance checkers will include a warning if this pragma is > # used. Authors are encouraged to use the @lang attribute instead.[HTTP] > > with the following > | Note: The semantics of this pragma, as well as of the HTTP > | Content-Language header, are different from the semantics of the @lang > | attribute. [HTTP] This part of the note makes sense to be here, although with a better explanation of the pragma's purpose, may no longer be necessary. > | Thus, there is no guarantee that the author consciously used either > | of them for setting the language. Therefore, conformance checkers > | will include a warning, whenever HTML5’s fallback language algorithm > | is activated, whether it is the higher protocol or > | this pragma that kicks in. Authors are informed about which language > | the document falls back to, and are encouraged to not rely on the > | fallback feature but to instead explicitly use the @lang attribute on > | the root element. However, I think this explanation belongs in the fallback section, not here. I'm also not convinced it belongs in the spec at all. I'd rather see a simple normative statement in the fallback paragraph that conformance checkers should/must emit a warning when the fallback is triggered. The explanation here is otherwise superfluous. > After the following text, > # the content attribute must have a value consisting of a valid BCP > # 47 language tag > > then add the following: > | , or a comma separated list of two or more BCP 47 language tags > > Delete the following text: > # This pragma is not exactly equivalent to the HTTP Content-Language > # header, for instance it only supports one language. I agree with the last two changes. ~fantasai P.S. IIRC public-html will block my reply, so you may need to quote it in its entirety if replying to that list.
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 00:01:33 UTC