Re: meta content-language

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 

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