- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:41:03 +0100
- To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, ishida@w3.org, ian@hixie.ch
CE Whitehead, Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:02:40 -0500:
> I like Leif's solution--to use the first language specified in http
> as the text processing language when none is specified in the html
> tag.
Perhaps this is something you could live with as well, Ian?
Otherwise, if at least one more person agrees, then I will formally
write a change proposal which permits 'http-equiv="Content-Language"'
to contain more than one language, but only when the root element uses
the @lang attribute.
Leif H Silli
> From: Leif Halvard Silli <>
> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:57:09 +0100
>> Ian Hickson, Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:39:08 +0000 (UTC):
>>> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
....
>>>> As a result, the HTML5 spec best should just say that <meta http-equiv
>>>> is used primarily as meta-information on the server side and is
>>>> therefore in general ignored on the client side.
>>>
>>> It's not ignored on the client side in practice.
>
>> Yes it is. As long as you use the @lang attribute, then META
>> content-langauge has no effect. Hence servers should be free to use it
>> as they want = according to the HTTP specs.
>
>> So, hereby I propose a compromise solution:
>
>> If the HTML document *doesn't* use the @lang attribute on the root
>> element, then the content-language pragma is forbidden from containing
>> more than one language tag - and this language tag will also define the
>> language of the document.
>
>> However, if the document does use the @lang attribute on the root
>> element, then authors are free to use 'http-equiv="Content-Language"'
>> for what it is meant for according to HTTP.
> I like this solution.
[...]
--
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 12 March 2010 02:41:49 UTC