W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

script vs. script (i18n and UAAG)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:10:55 -0500
Message-Id: <200011131640.LAA395286@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, nakane@w3.org
At 10:37 PM 2000-11-11 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>=============================================
>"Natural language"
>=============================================
>
>MD: For text-to-speech and text-to-braille, it's important that you
>know what language it is. For graphical rendering of text, the
>language of the text is only of minor importance. What counts
>in the latter case is the "script".
>
>IJ: We've avoided the term "script" in this context to
>avoid confusion with "scripting languages". 

Oops.

In this case, UA developers have valid accessible-design requirements to deal
with two technical and distinct meanings for 'script': from the perspective of
i18n and for things like ECMASCRIPT.   Also the less technical use of 'script'
in film and stage contexts by way of explaining captions and related concepts.

This is what glossaries are for.  Not to force terms into a single meaning,
necessarily, but to make clear the [possibly multiple] meaning(s) associated
with a given term in the domain where the current document is operating.  This
domain is not something contained within and controlled by the document.
It is
the collective mindspace of the readers of the document, including the
influences neighbor domains that these people must also deal with in the
course
of the work that causes them to read this document.

Overloading of terms like 'script' comes with this territory.  Pretending it
isn't there is not helpful.

Al
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 11:40:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT