- From: M.T. Carrasco Benitez <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 18:09:22 +0100 (MET)
- To: Francois Yergeau <yergeau@alis.com>
[François]> Why? You have not given a single argument in favor of it! I was under the impression that I had. Lets try again. We *agree* on the following: - Content-Language should be in the http header - Language label internal to the doc - Language label in only one place inside the doc - <meta http-equiv= ...> "may" be there and it is not not there - Optimization is private to the doc management system We disagree on where to put the language label. *One* of the following: - <html lang=xx> - <meta http-equiv= ...> - (Any other suggestion ?) As long as the language label is in *one* place only (monolingual docs) inside the doc and the server pick it up (optimization is private, hence I do not mind when the server does the actual picking) and the server transmit the Content-Language, I do not mind very much if it is one way or another as long a we all agree. The reason for suggesting the <meta http-equiv= ...> because the stuff to be put in the RFC 822 type header are in these tags. If the <meta http-equiv= ...> are there there should be used by the server; this is parallel to the question of transmting the char in the header: it is not done, but should be done. As I mentioned before, the question of language label is also important for the robots (altavista, etc). A robot should be capable of indexing per language or look for docs in only one language. It could be decided to do only a HEAD to check the language before doing a GET. (Anybody from Altavista, Yahoo! or similar around ?). Regards Tomas
Received on Friday, 21 February 1997 11:50:12 UTC