- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:17:05 +0200
- To: www-international@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli, Mon, 19 Apr 2010 01:38:49 +0200: > CE Whitehead, Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:19:15 -0400: >> Leif Halvard Silli, Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:45:31 +0200 … >> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language > > Thanks for the pointer. Since XHTML5 and HTML5 support the empty > string, the consequence of the advice in that article, must be that one > should *not* use "und" in XHTML5 and HTMl5. … Btw, the article states that ]] On the very rare occasion when the whole document is in an undefined language it is better to just not declare the default language of the document. [[ However, this advice does not help the slightest, if the user agent is inheriting a language from the Content-Language HTTP header or the HTTP-EQUIV meta element. Which is why I think that the semantics of an empty <meta http-equiv="Content-Langauge conten="<the_empty_string"> should remain as it is today, in all user agents except Mozilla: Firstly, it causes the user agent to not search for a fallback language in the HTTP header. Secondly, it has the semantics of not defining any language. More or less as expressed in my Change Proposal for HTML5. [1] (And that Change Proposal also links to some of the test cases, you asked about, CE.) [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 16:17:45 UTC