- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:23:06 +0200 (MEST)
- To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Yvette wrote: > Thanks for your comment. I agree that it would be a clear way to > present it to the authors. But I'm not sure it is in sync with what > the rest of W3C recommends since the other references seem to be very > keen on the META technique... As far as I remember some W3C I18N documents (e.g., when it comes to any encoding declarations, a similar scenario), it is always emphasized that HTTP headers are not available locally. > What would you recommend in the case of a document with two primary > languages? Lang/xml:lang only allow one language. You should declare the main language on the root element, and exceptions on the corresponding elements. If there is no such thing like a "main language", you should specify the language on elements following later. Roughly, for a German document: <html xml:lang="de" /> Italian, some English: <html xml:lang="it"> <p xml:lang="en" /> </html> French and English, assuming that there is no other text outside the exemplary "div" elements: <html> <div xml:lang="fr" /> <div xml:lang="en" /> </html> > If I had to encode such a document, I would use the META technique to > declare the languages of the document as a hole and <div lang="nl"> and > <div lang="fr"> to specify the languages of the sections. Well, if you use a "meta" element here, too, then you could also use a "lang" attribute on the root element. John wrote: > I disagree with Jens and Roberto: some language- techniques for > specifying language may *not* be sufficient for accessibility pruposes. Well, okay, I zeroed in on "lang"/"xml:lang" attributes. But, as far as I understand your feedback, there is nothing - "except" for partially insufficient support of "xml:lang" - really harmful with this approach, isn't it? -- Jens Meiert Information Architect http://meiert.com/ http://uitest.com/ < Reloaded
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 14:23:17 UTC