- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:54:03 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/27/2012 05:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>
> The current language is unacceptable and misleading without further clarification, as it implies textual/linguistic analysis.
> If the following informative text were added in a new Section 1.4 "Conventions", then I would be satisfied:
>
> <quote>
> A phrase of the form "known to be X" where X is a language name, e.g., "known to be Japanese", is intended to be determined
> using markup alone, and does not imply a requirement to perform linguistic analysis (i.e., language recognition) of associated
> text content."
> </quote>
The spec says
# The content language of an element is the (human) language the element is
# declared to be in, according to the rules of the document language.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The rules for determining the content language are deferred, in their entirety,
to the document language. I don't think that saying anything about how those
rules are formulated is within scope.
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:54:31 UTC