- From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:31:50 -0400
- To: Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>, "list.adam@twardoch.com" <list.adam@twardoch.com>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, www-font <www-font@w3.org>
On Friday, June 11, 2010 11:56 AM Laurence Penney wrote: > > I'd argue strongly against a top-level language split. > > Applications generally expect a complete set of strings for a given > language, allowing them to ignore data for unused languages entirely > (as I think Mac OS 10.6 does, to the point of not installing them). > > An XML scheme to handle arbitrary metadata will deal with technical > data that does not require any language tagging (for example, much of > the info in EPAR) as well as data designed for human consumption. It > strikes me as important that semantically identical elements (i.e. > translations) are kept close together; the alternative is to > incorporate a structural vulnerability such that two language branches > might represent entirely different semantics, and only the bilingual > would notice a problem. > Considering that different translations of identical elements come from the same source (i.e. a vendor of WOFF file) - would the responsibility to ensure that two language branches do not represent entirely different semantics lie solely with that vendor? Since the vendor is the only entity that truly cares about the meaning of the metadata presented to an end user, it seems that any reliance on a UA to properly match language tags to render metadata would only increase the risk that semantics may not be properly represented. Regards, Vlad
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 18:33:15 UTC