- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:38:24 +0000
- To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10152 --- Comment #2 from I18n Core WG <public-i18n-core@w3.org> 2010-10-07 17:38:24 UTC --- I like the wording in section 7.2. I think that that is sufficient. Wrt the http-equiv, I think that just not mentioning it in your text, as you do, is fine. No XML parser will pick up on the http-equiv, regardless of what browsers do, so you need to use xml:lang, but if you use xml:lang you must use lang too, and therefore you don't need to use the http-equiv. I don't think it's necessary to actually say all that though, especially as we are still waiting to hear the fate of the http-equiv for Content-Language, and the spec currently says it's obsolete. I wondered whether it might be better to reverse the two paragraphs. (Since the second refers to 'the' attributes which are defined in the second para.) Just a thought. The other thing you could say if you want to be thorough is that the values of both lang and xml:lang must be the same, eg. "Neither attribute is to be used without the other, and the values must be the same." -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 17:38:26 UTC