- From: M.T. Carrasco Benitez <carrasco@innet.lu>
- Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 11:52:38 +0100 (MET)
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
- cc: lee@sq.com, unicode@unicode.org, www-international@w3.org
> As of the definition in RFC 2070, the exact meaning of <HTML LANG=xxx> > is that everything not marked to be in any other language is xxx. > This can range from the whole document being in xxx to documents > that contain not a single word in xxx. The later case does not > make much sense in practical terms, but is perfectly legal > according to RFC 2070. Yes. But does it make sense to give some more "semantics" to this syntax ? > A general comment: > > As we have seen in this discussion up to now, there are many > different needs for language information about documents. > > Proposals for one specific interpretation of one already > well-defined way to indicate language in a HTML document, > to satisfy one specific information need that appeared at > one place are not a long-lasting approach to solving the > information needs we have. > > I would suggest to attack the problem in a wider frame, > e.g. to look at Metadata (DC or other) and see how this > can be used to satisfy the various needs already expressed > and the many more that will appear in the future. Does it make sense the approach in the present draft: "Natural language marking in HTML" or should we approach it from another angle ? I am aware that the proposal is very limited: just a clarification of the existing syntax and some additonal "semantics" and even so one can see the hard work for consensus. I am concern that a more "revolutionary" approach would not work. Tomas
Received on Saturday, 8 March 1997 05:46:50 UTC