- From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:07:59 -0500
- To: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
We should follow the advice given at [1] * If the document is HTML, just use "lang" * If the document is XHTML 1.0, or is any version of XHTML served as text/html, use both "lang" and "xml:lang" * If the document is XHTML 1.1 or higher and served as application/xhtml+xml, just use "xml:lang" Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20030218.131140352 > -----Original Message----- > From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu] > Sent: January 31, 2005 2:57 PM > To: Chris Ridpath; WAI WCAG List > Cc: Michael Cooper > Subject: RE: [techs] Fasttrack Tests > > > Chris Ridpath wrote: > <blockquote> > > 49 - HTML document has a valid language code > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test49.html > > > It appears that bug 1183 [1] was resolved such that *both* the xhtml: > lang and the html lang attributes must be used. It also says to follow > the advice on authoring techniques for xhtml [2] which says to use the > html lang > *and/or* the xml: lang". > > Do we need both the HTML lang attribute and the xml:lang attribute to > fulfill the WCAG requirement? > </blockquote> > - Which attribute is required depends on the DOCTYPE. HTML 4.01 uses > just the lang attribute. XHTML served as text/html needs *both* lang > and xml:lang. XHTML served as xml should have only the xml:lang > attribute. > > Ain't life grand? > John > example: <html xml:lang="en" lang="en"> > > Chris > > [1] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1183 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/ > > >
Received on Monday, 31 January 2005 20:08:02 UTC