- From: Andrew Daviel <andrew@andrew.triumf.ca>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:37:25 -0800 (PST)
- To: meta2 <meta2@mrrl.lut.ac.uk>, www-html <www-html@w3.org>
- Cc: HTTP WG <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com>
On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, Misha Wolf wrote: > There has been a recent debate, on the www-international list, regarding the > relationship between: > > 1. <... LANG=xxx> language tagging of HTML as per RFC 2070, > 2. <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Language" Content="xxx">. > 3. <META NAME = "DC.language" CONTENT = "..."> > > These flavours seem to be very loosely coupled. I am trying to understand the > uses and relative priorities of the various flavours. What should happen when > they disagree? > > The last two flavours are designed to exist both inside and outside an HTML > document. Would it be sensible to argue that where the HTML flavour is present, > the other two should be absent/ignored? HTTP type can be determined without getting the whole document (just the head). I think it's basically pre-unicode when nobody had figured out how to deal with several languages on one page. Also, it's tied in with content negotiation and the Accept-Language header. I'm slightly out of touch with that topic, but you can set your browser to preferentially accept a natural language and a negotiating server would give you what wou want to start with (instead of going through a "click here for English" page). The three are targeted at slightly different objects - http type for server/client, HTML for browsers and DC for cross-media indexing. I agree it's confusing. Andrew Daviel
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 1997 03:37:26 UTC