W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > March 2013

RE: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 18:24:46 +0000
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: www-international <www-international@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C0AF84C6D560544A17DDDEB68A9DFB501CB10@ex10-mbx-31004.ant.amazon.com>
Hi Felix,

I don't think the form of the attributes matters; either is equivalent, although having two types of attribute let you do interesting things like:

<p its-locale-filter-list="en" its-locale-exclude-list="*-CA">An English message not shown to Canadians</p>

Another way to approach the problem without adding attributes is to define your language priority list structure to be more complex than just a comma-separated list. An example of this would be the Accept-Language header defined by HTTP, which uses "q" weights to control how the list is ordered. For example, you might have one that looks like:

   Accept-Language: en;q=1.0,fr;q=0.6

An obvious extension to this would be to define negative weights or a "0.0" weight to exclude items. Then you might have:

<p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA">something Canadian</p>
<p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA;q=0.0">something non-Canadian</p>

Of course, you are free to define a different LPL structure from that used by HTTP (or anyone else) and this can include things like negation and so forth. 

My suggestion has the disadvantage that you'd then have to write an alternate matching scheme (BCP 47 Extended Filtering, which is what you use now, doesn't describe this). This isn't necessarily a Bad Thing: your requirements may be different. But I'd tend to be conservative in creating novel matching schemes.

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:05 AM
> To: Phillips, Addison
> Cc: www-international; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47
> 
> Hi Addison,
> 
> thanks for the feedback - we had something like this in a previous ITS2 draft,
> see the localeFilterType attribute at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120731/#EX-locale-filter-selector-1

> the only difference to what you propose is that localeFilterType is a separate
> attribute in addition to a main "list" attribute, whereas you have two attributes.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> Am 04.03.13 18:48, schrieb Phillips, Addison:
> > Hi Felix,
> >
> > Language tags (and language ranges) are mostly about selection, so there is
> no built-in means of doing what you're looking for. I don't think adding such a
> subtag would be a good idea either (where would you put it where it wouldn't
> be disturbed by a fallback mechanism? What happens if your value is a
> language priority list?).
> >
> > I think a better means of doing this is having a separate attribute that is like
> "its-locale-filter-list", only as an exclusion list ("its-locale-exclusion-list"). Then it
> is easy to write:
> >
> > <p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA">Legal notice for Canada</p> <p
> > its-locale-exclusion-list="*-CA">Legal notice for all other
> > countries</p>
> >
> > Addison
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> >> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:40 AM
> >> To: www-international
> >> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
> >> Subject: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> at
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-

> >> lt/2013Feb/0318.html
> >> the MLW-LT WG is discussing a use case of expressing that something
> >> is not in a locale. One way to do this is to add a flag to a BCP 47
> >> value, see above cited mail. Another way could be to have in a markup
> >> environment an additional attribute expressing the "include" vs "exclude"
> options for the BCP 47 value.
> >>
> >> Thoughts? This is probably an additional piece of information rather
> >> than part of a BCP47 value itself. Has such a use case been discussed for
> BCP47 values?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Felix
> >>
> >> (this is action-454 for the MLW-LT WG)

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 18:26:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 March 2013 18:26:12 GMT