W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > July 2009

[SKOS] Re: ISSUE-224 [was: Agenda - 2009-07-07 SWD telecon]

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:59:16 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20090707105245.0513c530@127.0.0.1>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 July 2009 14:59:49 GMT