- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:59:16 -0400
- To: Sean Bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
At 03:49 PM 7/7/2009 +0100, Sean Bechhofer wrote: >On 7 Jul 2009, at 14:15, Antoine Isaac wrote: ... >> 2009-06-29. Addison Phillips on I18N issue >>> -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2009Jun/0040.html >> >> >>Re. this issue, I can live with the option where we would recommend >>to use pref and altLabels with literals that have no language tag. >>Even though this is clearly less flexible (e.g. not being compatible >>with the country code example). > >As I understand the comment, the problem is specifically with example >22 rather than the use of language tags with pref and altLabel, That is the way I read the I18N Core WG comment as well. It should not be too difficult (nor require restarting Proposed Rec review) to alter the example, right? >>I also volunteer to start a discussion with the i18n people on >>whether the use of private use tags is merely frowned upon, or if >>they would still formally object if our examples were just made >>compatible with the syntax for private use tags. > >That would be great -- thanks Antoine. I'm nervous about asking for approval :) They are very careful about their prose. They specifically wrote "frowned upon" and not some stronger language and that's our loophole. I believe this could be related to discussion we had at our May 2008 face-to-face [1] as well. I would recommend instead that we offer to (a) modify the example(s) to be syntactically conformant and (b) offer to add a phrase such as "note that such use of private subtags to transmit data unrelated to language or language choice may violate BCP 47". >>I indeed understand that syntactially wrong tags are to be avoided >>in the rec. But if we make explicit that we're really not expecting >>the use of private tags to be common, then maybe the i18n would be >>happier on this specific point (which is different from the >>syntactic validity, again). I don't think we're going to get them to admit that they're "happier" with us documenting a practice upon which they "frown" :) [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/05/06-swd-minutes.html
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 14:59:49 UTC