- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 13:19:23 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org
On 2010-05-07 13:05, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 07.05.2010 11:34, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> For this issue, we have 3 options presented: >> >> 1. Make Content-Language non-conforming. >> 2. Leave Content-Language as Obsolete but Conforming, permitting only a >> single language tag. (Current spec) >> 3. Leave Content-Language as Obsolete but Conforming, permitting a comma >> separated list of language tags. >> ... > > Another alternative is to leave it alone (it's conformant in HTML4, > isn't it?). It's not at all clear what you mean by "leave it alone", and I'm not sure what relevance HTML4 has in this context. Do you mean to leave it as is in the current HTML5 spec (option #2)? Or do you mean to define it as it was defined in HTML4: provide a vague hint about permitting any HTTP header field to be used in http-equiv without defining the permitted content attribute values or processing requirements? Given the clear explanation I gave for why even #3 is not a reasonable solution, why would that be any more acceptable? What use case would it address and or what problem would it actually solve? -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 11:19:56 UTC