W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: xml:lang [was Re: Outstanding Issues ]

From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:03:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203071904.OAA20027@mail.reutershealth.com>
To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Jeremy Carroll), w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Misha.Wolf@reuters.com scripsit:

> I haven't seen Pat's examples, but want to stress that locale and
> language are very different concepts and that xml:lang is defined for
> language, not for locale.

I agree with this principle completely, but ...

> It is perfectly OK for someone in France to
> write in English and for someone in the UK to write in French.  This
> does not magically interchange the meanings of instances of "1,234" and
> "1.234" found within their documents.

.. this doesn't seem like a good example.  1,234 embedded in German
text is going to be between 1 and 2, no matter where it was written;
1,234 embedded in us-en text is going to mean between 1000 and 2000,
no matter where it was written.

A better example is sorting: one may wish en_US rules for sorting
even if the strings being sorted are in a variety of languages
and marked as such.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:08:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:14 EDT