RE: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)

Hello Leif,

The I18N WG started to consider this proposal today, but will not have a resolution in place on it until next week.

Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N, IETF IRI WGs)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 11:22 AM
> To: Maciej Stachowiak
> Cc: Phillips, Addison; public-html@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org;
> www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)
> 
> [I'm resending my message from 30 Apr 2010, with a properly
> formated
> keyword - ISSUE-88 (earlier I forgot the hyphen) so that the
> proposal
> gets listed on this issue's tracker page -
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/88.  Also corrected a
> typo.]
> 
> Updated change proposal:
> 
> Let multiple language tags continue to be legal.
> (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages)
> 
> == Summary ==
> * Multiple language tags (a comma separated list) in @http-equiv
>   Content-Language continues to be legal.
> * Conformance checkers will emit a warning whenever  – and only
> if –
>   the fallback language algorithm kicks in.
> * The fallback warning will kick in regardless of whether the
> fallback
>   comes from HTTP or Content-Language.
> 
> == Rationale ==
> The problems with the current specification are
> 
> 1. That it prevents authors from legally using multiple values to
>    replicate the language fallback effect of doing the same thing
>    in a HTTP header.
>   * That no language gets set, as HTML5 requires from multiple tags
> whether they occur in HTTP or in @http-equiv, is still an effect.
> The
> spec is therefore incorrect in claiming about the latter that “[for
> instance it only supports one language]”.
> 2. That it prevents @http-equiv from being used as a reference to
> what
> the HTTP Content-Language is/was meant to be.
>   * Consider Firefox’ Page Info panel. Consider some CMSes.
> Consider
> simply authors themselves.
> 3. That it underlines the confusion that may exist today, about the
> nature of @lang versus Content-Language, by requiring:
>   * different syntax rules for features that are expected to be
> identical (HTTP and @http-equiv )
>   * similar syntax rules for features that are different (http-
> equiv
> and lang)
>   * a warning message which asks authors to “use @lang instead” –
> as if
> they were juxtaposable alternatives.
> 
> Conformance checking and warnings are in place, but should be about
> the
> correct things.
> 
> 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.
> 
> == Details ==
> Proposed spec changes, to section [4.2.5.3 Pragma directives]:
> 
> Replace the following text
>   ]]  Conformance checkers will include a warning if this pragma is
> used. Authors are encouraged to use the @lang attribute
> instead.[HTTP]
> [[
> 
> with the following
>   ]]  The semantics of this pragma, as well as of the HTTP
> Content-Language header, are different from the semantics of the
> @lang
> attribute. [HTTP] 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.  [[
> 
> 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.
> [[
> 
> 
> == Impact ==
> === Positive Effects ===
> 1. More stable: same syntax as before continues to be permitted.
> 2. More permissive: authors, CMS-es and browsers can continue to
> take
> advantage of @http-equiv ’s ability to reference what the HTTP
> header
> is/was supposed to be, including replicating its fallback effect.
> 3. More correct: the difference between @lang and Content-Language
> is
> pointed out, while the link between @http-equiv and HTTP is
> emphasized.
> 4. More useful: a warning that a fallback feature has kicked in, is
> more useful than a warning which focuses on one of the places where
> the
> fallback language could potentially kick in from. Why tell authors
> to
> “use @lang insetad” if the author has already made sure that the
> @lang
> attribute is in place?
> 
> === Negative Effects ===
> none
> 
> === Conformance Classes Changes ===
> * For UAs: none, compared with the change that HTML5 already
> requires.
> * For validators: They must validate a comma separated list as
> conforming. They must check when the fallback language algorithm is
> activated.
> * For the HTML5 spec: see the Details section above.
> 
> === Risks ===
> In legacy UAs, there is a risk that multiple language tags cause
> them
> to report that the document is in a meaningless language. However,
> this
> is a low risk. And authors can avoid it by using the @lang and
> xml:lang
> attributes. This change proposal ensures that authors will continue
> to
> be encouraged to use lang, and not Content-Language, for setting
> the
> language.
> 
> == References ==
> Section [14.12 Content-Language] of [RFC 2616]:
> HTML4’s general [HTTP-EQUIV explanation]
> HTML4, section [8.1.2 Inheritance of language codes]

Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 18:27:18 UTC