RE: ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple - Chairs Solicit Proposals

I see that you have failed to follow up the issue:

http://www.w3.org/mid/749108E1-6117-4872-82C8-28B8A3E70219@apple.com


Disappointing.

Btw, FWIW, Richard's message of yesterday was sent to the incorrect 
mailing list:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-wg-announce/2010JanMar/0001.html


Leif Halvard Silli


Richard Ishida, Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:15:30 -0000:
> Hi Leif,
> 
> Thanks for getting back to us and reassuring us (we do seem to be on the
> same wavelength).  
> 
> The i18n WG think it makes sense for us to take over the action to produce
> the change proposal.  (Thanks for considering it.)
> 
> Best regards,
> RI
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/

> http://rishida.net/

> 
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
>> Sent: 09 December 2009 20:03
>> To: Richard Ishida
>> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; 'Paul Cotton'; 'Michael (tm) Smith'
>> Subject: RE: ISSUE-88: content-language-multiple - Chairs Solicit
> Proposals
>> 
>> Richard Ishida, Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:05:01 -0000:
>>> Hello Leif,
>>> 
>>> I was told that in your change proposal you will propose that the lang
>>> attribute supports multiple language values.
>> 
>> Whatever the reason: the one/ones who told you so was/were in error.
>> 
>>>  Although we haven't discussed
>>> it for this particular topic, I'm certain that the i18n WG will strongly
>>> oppose such a suggestion, based on a long history of working with and
>>> educating about the language attributes.  The main reason for this is
> that
>>> the language attribute defines the language of a range of text for
>>> text-processing purposes, which requires  information about a single
>>> language - use of multiple language values makes no sense for that.
>> Another
>>> reason is that for consistency similar changes would have to be made for
>>> xml:lang - and the likelihood of that happening in the near timeframe is
>>> essentially zero.
>>> 
>>> For more information about this and the difference between values of
>>> language attributes and those of the HTTP header or the meta
>>> Content-Language element, see
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.100519373

>>> 
>>> Could you please confirm to us whether you were planning to propose the
>>> above, and if so could we please discuss this (and indeed any other
>>> divergences from the proposal made by the i18n WG at
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Oct/1086.html)
> before
>>> you submit your change proposal?
>> 
>> I have followed the debate fairly thoroughly, and I also filed the bug
>> report that lead to Issue-88. I gave my interpretation of the I18N WG's
>> proposal here:
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/20091126202756258786.e7d3d2a4@xn--mlform-

>> iua.no
>> 
>> Perhaps be the confusing point in that letter were the following:
>> 
>> ]]
>> But since the meta may also be used to set the
>> language of the document, if the lang attribute is lacking or wrongly
>> set in the <html> element - or consciously do so, then - for that
>> purpose - if you place multiple languages inside the meta element, then
>> it is equal to setting multiple languages inside the lang attribute.
>> [[
>> 
>> When I said the above, I meant exactly the same that you expressed in
>> the I18N WG's proposal message which you pointed to above:
>> 
>> ]]
>> [4] Establish the rule that multiple values in the place that has
>> precedence
>> equates to lang="".
>> [[
>> 
>> That is, if someone defines the audience languages like this:
>> 
>> <meta http-equiv=content-language content="en" />
>> 
>> then it may also be interpreted as setting the document language to
>> "en":
>> 
>> <html lang="en">
>> 
>> Whereas if sets the audience languages to these:
>> 
>> <meta http-equiv=content-language content="en, de, ru" />
>> 
>> then it must be interpreted as if the document language is unknown:
>> 
>> <html lang="" >
>> 
>> Please let me know if my interpretation deviates much from yours.
>> 
>> By the way: I offered to write the change proposal because I filed the
>> bug - I felt that was like taking responsibility  for ones acts.
>> However, I would be happy to step down from that duty, and have been
>> considering that thought since you entered the thread asking about the
>> next step. After all, I read that you talked with Ian at the W3C
>> conference recently and so on - it sounded as if you were approaching
>> and understanding. Please let me know if you think that would be in
>> order.
>> 
>> BR
>> Leif Halvard Silli
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 16:58:59 UTC