Re: Internationalized CLASS attributes

Abigail (abigail@ny.fnx.com)
Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:35:24 -0400 (EDT)


Message-Id: <199610172135.RAA06441@melgor.ny.fnx.com>
Subject: Re: Internationalized CLASS attributes
To: www-international@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 17:35:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Abigail" <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
In-Reply-To: <199610172002.NAA07260@gongolo.eng.sun.com> from "Andrea Vine [CONTRACTOR]" at Oct 17, 96 01:02:49 pm

Andrea Vine [CONTRACTOR] wrote:
++ 
++ I wrote:

++ > Indeed. Having a uniform set of names is in my opinion more useful
++ > than using class names in a native language. (One can always do
++ > that for author-defined classes). After all, the element and 
++ > attribute names are in English too, aren't they?

++ How about Esperanto?  No need for an English bias...
++ 
++ Andrea 
++ avine@eng.sun.com
++ 
++ (English is fine for me, but since I'm a native speaker, I don't think that should hold any sway.)


Well, I don't think there is any need in thinking 'HTML is written in
language X, and that's not fair for non-native-X speakers'

As one of my professors once said:
"Pascal doesn't use English. Pascal uses keywords. The keywords
 just happen to look like English words."

And the same holds for HTML of course. A table would work the same if
it was called GRDWXC in stead of TABLE. And for someone not having any
knowledge of English or other related languages, GRDWXC is just as easy
(or difficult) as TABLE. But English is the current linga franca. So,
if you make it easier for a part of the users to remember
element/attribute names, you might as well borrow words from a language
which is understood by a large part of the community.

Noone looses by using English words in stead of random words (which
would make it as hard for everyone), but it gets easier for a lot of
people. So, what's the big deal?



Abigail