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

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

From: A. Vine <andrea.vine@sun.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 10:08:21 -0800
Message-ID: <3C87AC95.59FF045D@sun.com>
To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com
CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
And to add to Misha's comment:

There is no tag for locale.  Anywhere.

The reason often stated is that locale is a client concept, not a data concept. 
Of course, in the example below, it is a data concept.  Another reason is that
locales are not standardized - and this is actually a bigger problem.

In order to determine equivalency between 2 different locale-based formats,
standard internal representations would have to be agreed upon, which are not
necessarily US format.  In fact, most internal representations of numeric values
are usually more cryptic than a locale-based format, for efficiency.

Andrea

Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
> 
> 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.  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.
> 
> Misha
> 
> On 07/03/2002 11:02:06 Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > I clearly had misunderstood somewhat, thanks for the full response.
> >
> > > Yes indeed, we would have to agree that
> > >     "10,03"-fi equal? "10.03"-en
> > > is out of scope, but not because the I18N WG/IG requires all
> > > XML documents to use XML Schema formatted datatypes only, but
> > > because any spec that would want to define the above equivalences
> > > for a significant number of languages and datatypes in an
> > > interoperable and user-acceptable way might take years or more.
> >
> > Personally, I think this leaves Pat's examples as in scope (eventually),
> > rather than out-of-scope.
> >
> > Jeremy
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
> 
> Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 14:42:25 EST

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