name=language vs http-equiv=content-language

[weegillis]

<meta name="language" content="en-CA" />

versus

<meta http-equiv="content-language" content="en-CA" />

Cynthia Says insists that the former be present, even when the latter is. It won't a pass a page without it, even if the latter is omitted.

Even when the response header clearly states content-language, Cynthia Says won't pass the page. But it will if just the name"language" attribute is present, and no other HTTP response.

Where it gets confusing is that USEFUL META TAGS, a link someone once posted, and W3C both offer no reference to this meta tag. What's the case?

Out of respect for the Cynthia Says testing engine and criteria, I include the tag, and set the HTTP content-language response on the server where possible, or omit the http-equiv tag if not.

What is the correct thing to do?

[wige]

My guess, since the Cynthia Says portal is an accessibility checker, would be that certain screen readers use the name=language form, which is why it is considered required. Many of the accessibility sites I have seen recommend use of the name=language form for just that reason.