- From: M.T. Carrasco Benitez <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 01:40:26 +0100 (MET)
- To: Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS <gra@zeppo.East.Sun.COM>
- cc: www-international@w3.org, misha.wolf@reuters.com
> The best argument for > > <HTML LANG=xx> > > is that the document is self describing and can be transported via http, ftp, > mail, gopher, webnfs, imap, etc. and still have proper identification in the > web client application (could be a browser, could be indexing engine, could > be a translation service, etc.) I second this. More, or read directly. > The best argument for > > <META HTTP-EQUIV...> > > is that document authors can add information to the http headers without > special actions taken by a site administrator. Even the language is in <HTML LANG=xx>, the server must pick-up the language and transmit it with the header. Tomas
Received on Thursday, 27 February 1997 19:38:59 UTC