TheMadScientist - 7:25 am on Nov 5, 2012 (gmt 0)
Okay, can we just go with the stinking point that when the language code is wrong in a larger number of cases than you get it wrong by coding an alternative solution, using your solution rather than having to apply your solution and then go back and decide whether or not to use the original language code you had to ignore in the first place so you could apply your solution is a better decision, because going back and deciding if you should use the original just adds unnecessary steps to the process OR do we really need to split hairs over what precisely they use just so people can get the stinking point:
It's impractical and silly to have to create an alternative then go back and decide whether to use the original or not, when you can just as reliably use the alternative you were forced to create due to misuse of the original.
Did I say they always get it right? No, but they say the reason they did it is because the language code is often incorrect ... Do you really think they went and coded a way to try and determine what language a page is written in and then told a story about why and that they continue to use it if they get it wrong more than they would by using what's coded on the page just for the extra work? Come on, seriously...
It makes them look bad when they get it wrong, so don't you think they would use the most reliable solution they have? I certainly do.
Why on earth do we have to qualify every single statement here?
Next time I'll try to remember to add (or some other alternative) when I say 'use the language on the page', just for the hair splitters who can't seem to 'get the point' without a perfect statement. My bad for not qualifying my statement with the utmost accuracy the first time ... I didn't think the point I was making was that difficult to get, even if they don't ever use the language on the page to make the determination, but in hindsight, obviously it was...