RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion

Apologies. This links is much better than the one below:
http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/tech-lang.html


============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: 14 February 2005 15:43
> To: 'Michael Cooper'; 'WAI WCAG List'
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> 
> 
> [Copying i18n]
> 
> Just noticed this.  Please do not recommend putting language 
> information on the body element.  Please strongly recommend 
> that it be put on the html element.
> 
> Please also look at http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/ 
> before designing your test.
> 
> 
> Also, note that the test procedure is incorrect in step 6.  A 
> French Canadian document may be marked up as fr-CA, which is 
> more than just a ISO
> 639 language code.  (Another example, Simplified Chinese may 
> be zh-Hans, using a special IANA-registered code.)  The 
> correct reference point is RFC
> 3066 *or it's successors* (since one is currently in 
> preparation).  This is a large set of possibilities, so I'm 
> not sure how you will easily be able to test that the code is correct.
> 
> Alternatively, you might recommend that the *first part* of 
> the langauge code is an ISO 639 or IANA registered code.  
> Just thought that up, so I'm not sure whether it makes sense.
> 
> Also, you should reconsider your test files
> - the examples shown seem to assume an XML MIME type, rather 
> than text/html by saying that the lang attribute is invalid
> -	or did you mean that the language attribute value, 
> "language", is
> invalid? - in which case, you should still specify the MIME 
> type used (ie.
> currently text/html)
> 
> Best regards,
> RI
> 
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> W3C
> 
> contact info:
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 
> 
> W3C Internationalization:
> http://www.w3.org/International/ 
> 
> Publication blog:
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
>  
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cooper
> > Sent: 14 February 2005 15:11
> > To: WAI WCAG List
> > Subject: RE: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > 
> > 
> > I think there is nothing wrong with providing the "lang" 
> > attribute on the <body> element, but I think we should 
> still require 
> > it on the <html> element. This is a place we can expect 
> user agents to 
> > be consistent in looking for the attribute. Also, there are 
> elements 
> > in the <head> section of the document that require language 
> > information, such as the title, description, keywords, and 
> potentially 
> > others. While it possible to see the attribute on those 
> individually, 
> > I just think it is good practice to have the attribute at 
> the highest 
> > level possible. Michael
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Chris Ridpath [mailto:chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca]
> > > Sent: February 11, 2005 2:54 PM
> > > To: WAI WCAG List
> > > Cc: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl; Michael Cooper
> > > Subject: [techs] Test 49 Suggestion
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yvette suggested that another way to pass test 49 [1] would
> > be to put
> > > a lang attribute on the body tag. e.g. <body lang="nl>
> > > 
> > > Should we permit this? Or do we always require that the HTML lang
> > > attribute(s) be set?
> > > 
> > > Chris
> > > 
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test49.html
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 15:45:46 UTC