- From: M.T. Carrasco Benitez <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:20:04 +0100 (MET)
- To: Misha Wolf <misha.wolf@reuters.com>
- cc: www-international <www-international@w3.org>, Unicode Discussion <unicode@unicode.org>
> The value of the LANG attribute is *not* defined to be an ISO 639 code. > RFC 2070 uses the language tag scheme defined by RFC 1766. ISO 639 is just > one element of this scheme. All the following examples use more than ISO 639 > and are legal RFC 1766 language tags: > zh-cn > no-nyn > en-cockney > x-klingon You are right. I will correct it. > I do not agree with the proposition that the presence of <HTML LANG=...> > should be taken to mean that the document is monolingual. For an example, > see <http://www.reuters.com/unicode/iuc10/x-utf8.html>. This document is > far from monolingual - it contains the same text in twenty nine languages. > As the document has an English title, a brief English introduction, a few > English images and ends with English trademark statements, we have used > <HTML LANG=en>, and have then tagged the elements containing the various > texts with the languages of those texts. To us this indicates that the > individual texts are embedded within an English page, even though it is > not the case that "... the bulk of the document is in one language.". There is a need to indicate monolingual docs. <HTML LANG=...> look like the right place as the meaning is "if I do not indicate otherwise, the text in this document is in language xx". So, it should expect that the bulk of the language be the one indicate in <HTML LANG...>. For the document you mentioned, it would probably be better not to indicate the language in the <HTML LANG...> and to mark the English like the other languages as the doc is clearly multilingual. Tomas
Received on Saturday, 8 March 1997 04:14:28 UTC