- From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:21:25 +0200
- To: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
- cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: >>>[...] I don't see a good reason to ignore XHTML 1.0's "Use both the >>>lang and xml:lang attributes when specifying the language of an >>>element" and thereby advertising "incompatible" markup. >> >>Hmmm. Do me a favour and play devil's advocate for a moment. What are >>the _downsides_ to including both? > >Downsides of redundancy? Well, waste of octets? If you care about that, >you could send the "Content-Language" HTTP header but there is an actual >downside that it is unspecified, whether XML documents inherit the >language from the HTTP header or not. I have a bit too much on my mind to cope with keeping this concept completely in my mind (it's a murky and cluttered place ;D). I have this vague feeling that I didn't want to put "lang" in there because it might be confusing and encourage the use of a deprecated attribute. Can you think of any rational objections such as that against including it? Otherwise I'll update the example to include it later today. ( IOW, you've sold me on the change and now I'm asking you to come up with arguments to dissuade me from doing what you want me to do. Ain't I a stinker? :-) ) -- My mom is a professional botanist, or, as her spousal equivalent described it, they'll be out hiking in the woods, she'll see a plant off by the side of the trail, run up to it, bend down, and start talking Latin at it. -- Steve VanDevender
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 14:21:30 UTC