- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:52:18 +0200
- To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, ishida@w3.org
CE Whitehead, Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:44:36 -0400: > > 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. I have come to see it like this: The syntax of Content-Language is, ultimately, regulated not by HTML5, but by HTTP (RFC 2616), which has no definition of what an empty Content-Language header means. It does however define what the *lack* of a Content-Language header means: [1] ]] If no Content-Language is specified, the default is that the content is intended for all language audiences. This might mean that the sender does not consider it to be specific to any natural language, or that the sender does not know for which language it is intended. [[ So if you are willing to take the lack of a Content-Language header all together, as somewhat equal to a lang="*" attribute in lack of a language tag (in other words, whose content is the empty string), then HTTP and HTML5 as well as that QA article [2] *do* in fact agree that 'und' is the second choice. >> 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 [1] http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.14.12 [2] http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-no-language -- leif halvard silli
Received on Saturday, 24 April 2010 00:52:54 UTC