David Starner prosfilaes at
Fri Jan 6 20:28:52 CET 2017

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:39 AM Luc Pardon <lucp at> wrote:

> Please refer to the "Legal obligations" section of the Wikipedia page
> that I cited above. Summarizing, paraphrasing and (maybe) slightly
> exaggerating: if you are publishing things on the web that have
> different languages in them but no fine-grained tagging, you may get sued.

Did you use fine-grained tagging on this email? Because it is getting
published to the web. It doesn't matter, because the HTML gets stripped
when it gets archived and posted on the web. The majority of the web is
user-generated material, and is never getting fine-grained tagged. In the
US, I'd argue that any requirement that non-commercial speech be tagged is
an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

And because I have been misunderstood before: what I'm actually trying
> to say here is that we should not brush the idea of tagging for
> accessibility aside just like that and be done with it. That is not a
> good idea, for many reasons

I don't see acknowledging that texts need tagging at the top level as
brushing aside the idea of tagging for accessibility.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list