- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:02:15 +0000
- To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10152 --- Comment #17 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2011-03-09 19:02:13 UTC --- (In reply to comment #16) > However, I actually think that we need to push for resolution of ISSUE-88 > before worrying about the content-language meta in the polyglot document, since > the current behaviour of content-language meta is currently under doubt. Agreed. However, I wanted to ask 2 questions regarding comment #9: > The prescribed way according to > the XML spec is to use the xml:lang attribute, and this is what XML processors > such as XSLT expect to find for their functions. QUESTION 1: Are XML processors, such as XSLT, required to react to HTTP Content-Language (coming from the web server), at all? I'll answer myself: they are not! This is pretty obvious because Content-Language is not meant to affect the language of the document .... Hence we must conclude that it isn't only http-equiv="Content-Language" that is dangerous when it comes to Polyglot Markup, but even Content-Language coming from the HTTP server. (And in my Change Proposal for ISSUE-88, I did therefore also speak about the HTTP server.) CONCLUSION: Thus, we must realize that, on the HTML side, the language can be affected even by HTTP. (HTML5 does not attempt to regulate HTTP ...) QUESTION 2: Thus, perhaps we can ignore ISSUE-88 and simply make it REQUIRED to use xml:lang/lang in polyglot markup? Because, that is the only practical way to become immune against the HTTP effect. Keep in mind, then that the attribute could be empty: <html xml:lang="" lang="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" > -- 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 Wednesday, 9 March 2011 19:02:16 UTC