- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 03:21:57 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org
Julian Reschke, Fri, 07 May 2010 13:05:31 +0200: > On 07.05.2010 11:34, Lachlan Hunt wrote: >> On 2010-05-05 20:22, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Let multiple language tags continue to be legal. >>> (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages) >> >> This is a response to the arguments put forth in both that change >> proposal, the the change proposal from the i18n WG. Both proposals >> present similarly flawed arguments, and so I will refute them together. >> >> http://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Htmlissue88 >> >> 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?). The 'Let multiple language tags continue to be legal' proposal *does* leave it - if not alone, then at least it leaves it as in HTML4, syntax wise. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 8 May 2010 01:22:34 UTC