RE: Regarding update of language declaration tests (I81NWG)

Leif, thanks very very much!  This is nice.

 

I personally do like lang="" as an option -- in fact I thought it was generally preferable to und for some reason.

 

Best,

C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar@hotmail.com

> Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 22:48:09 +0200
> From: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
> To: cewcathar@hotmail.com
> CC: www-international@w3.org; ishida@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Regarding update of language declaration tests (I81NWG)
> 
> CE Whitehead, Wed, 21 Apr 2010 21:08:49 -0400:
> >>> I looked at your proposal Leif:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/lang_versus_contentLanguage
> >>> "The value of the content attribute of the last occurring meta 
> >>> content-language element must be the empty string."
> >>> { MY COMMENT: no not really;
> >>> I think it should optionally be lang="" and some single language 
> >>> declaration tag;
> >> 
> >> Yes. Thanks to your mention of the QA article about "no language", I 
> >> think I will make some drastic changes to it.
> > 
> > This should be changed, yes, so that it can either be lang="und" 
> > lang="" or lang="fr" (or "en" or "fr" or "zh" or "ar" or "no" etc.)
> 
> New change proposal: Allow multiple values in the http-equiv 
> Content-Language element (ISSUE 88) [1]
> 
> Differences from the former: 
> Accepted Ian’ algorithm.
> Accepted single language tag as a valid value.
> Dropped request for the empty string to be valid.
> Added request to make multiple values valid.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages
> -- 
> leif halvard silli