W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: simple language testable thing

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 11:14:28 +0200
To: 'Mike Barta' <mikba@microsoft.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <000301c3ee23$f7556260$340aa8c0@patirsrv.patir.com>

Small point, but critical

I was not suggesting not using foreign words, merely that one provides a
translation. This can be done through markup

Also, in Guideline 3.1 	success criteria 1 we have

<q>Foreign words or phrases that are found in standard unabridged
dictionaries for the natural language of the content do not need to be
marked. </q>

So as you are doing that anyway, all that remains (in html) is to use
the title tag of the span to provide a translation at the same time...

It is just a question of technology, and does not affect or limit the
way people write or the page content


All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Barta [mailto:mikba@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 7:33 PM
> To: lisa seeman; Jens Meiert
> Cc: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: simple language testable thing
> 
> 
> so I would need to translate serbian within a hrvatskii page 
> but not latin in an english page?  
>  
> personally I can see cases where use of a foreign bon mot, 
> even though readers may not know the meaning, or a foreign 
> acronym, e.g. CERN,  is appropriate without translation.  in 
> such cases the author must decide what they want to do and 
> whether the use is appropriate for their audience.
>  
> I agree with the intent of your suggestion but the impact of 
> it could be to ban nearly all english literature from the web 
> due to the many uses of foreign phrases and obscure words.  
> this issue is fraught with subjective calls.
>  
> I do not have a helpfull alternate suggestion unfortunately.
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org on behalf of lisa seeman
> Sent: Wed 2/4/2004 4:57 AM
> To: 'Jens Meiert'
> Cc: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: simple language testable thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I was being ambiguous (or ever just plain incorrect)
> 
> Let me try and say what I mean.
> 
> Words written in a different alphabet to that of the primary 
> natural language of the plain are foreign words and should 
> have a translation provided...
> 
> True?
> 
> All the best
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> Visit us at the UB Access website
> UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jens Meiert [mailto:jens.meiert@erde3.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:12 AM
> > To: lisa seeman
> > Cc: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: simple language testable thing
> >
> >
> > > In Hebrew (for once ) this is easy.
> > > A foreign word is written in a different character set.
> >
> > CMIIW, but since the UCS (Universal Character Set, often 
> referred to 
> > as
> > Unicode) is the document character set for HTML/XML, they (foreign 
> > words) ain't written in a different character set.
> >
> > Again referring to to John (see my last post [1]) I claim 
> this is an 
> > issue where unimpaired users are affected as well. Also, I 
> don't see 
> > any need for ruling language use by the WAI WG (there 
> already was such 
> > a discussion a few months ago [2] ;).
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >  Jens.
> >
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0169
> .html
> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-> gl/2003OctDec/0411.html
> 
> 
> --
> Jens Meiert
> Interface Architect
> 
http://meiert.com/
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 04:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC