- From: Olav Junker Kjær <olav@olav.dk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:35:03 +0100
dolphinling wrote: > WRT the "ugly consequences", if this is aesthetic remember that the > error is coming from the UA, so it's not expected to mesh well with the > page. If it's not aesthetic I'm not sure what you mean. No, I was thinking about the consistency of the language in the error description. If one field in a form uses build-in validation, and another uses custom validation, the two error messages would be in two different languages. Consider the example error message in section 2.6: > The expected format is: a digit followed by three uppercase letters. > You cannot complete this form until the field is correct. Imagine how this would look on a danish page with an english UA: : Det forventede format er: et tal efterfulgt af the store bogstaver : You cannot complete this form until the field is correct. Thats what I call ugly :-) > Finally, if the page never says what language it is, how is the UA > supposed to know? That would be a large problem on the majority of the web. You have a point there. But OTOH this would introduce a practical reason (as distinct from a "semantic" reason) to declare the language of pages, so maybe people would start doing it :-) Olav Junker Kj?r
Received on Thursday, 25 November 2004 08:35:03 UTC