- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:58:05 +0200
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: >>> Thus, the current draft opens up the possibility that the document >>> actually isn't aimed at a Russian audience at all. It could be that >>> the person who created the Web page only wanted to specify the >>> language of those comments he placed outside <html />. >> >> I don't believe this is a change from HTML4. > > There is a change here. The current draft has removed the http-equiv > functionality from the META element. This means that the author now is > "free" to use it to specify the comments outside <html/>, because he > isn't actually specifying the language preferences of his intended > audience anymore. I do agree that the current spec language that suggest that it is different from HTTP needs to be backed out (for instance, wrt multiple languages). That being said, *this* specific case seems to be in line with what previous specs said. > To use "content-language" for that purpose in HTML 4, would be a misuse. How so? Is this about the difference between meta/@http-equiv='content-language' and the Content-Language HTTP header? BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:58:59 UTC