W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Comment on LTLI WD: purpose?

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:24:57 +0900
Message-ID: <444DB2A9.4050506@w3.org>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-i18n-comments@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org
Hello Martin, Anne, all,

Martin Duerst wrote:
> Hello Anne,
> I think you are right that it is difficult to understand
> at the moment why this document is needed on top of what
> in a few weeks or months should be BCP 47 (what's currently
> RFC 3066bis + the current matching draft).
> I think there are various reasons for this. Because this is
> only a first working draft,

I am aware of many "todos" in this draft, and I'm very happy about Annes
and Martins comments. The reason to publish the draft in its current
state was to give people from outside the working group the chance to
contribute via comments, since there are some important players in this
area, who are not members of i18n core.

So yes, please comment.

Regards, Felix.

> we can still improve this.
> Here a few suggestions (mostly for Felix):
> - Mention the relevant IETF base specs explicitly in the
>   abstract. [but avoid copying the abstract in the STOD]
> - Reduce definitions. Terms such as "extended language range"
>   should not be redefined here. The correct way to write
>   this is not
>     [Definition: An extended language range is a language range
>      as described in sec. 2.2 of [RFC 3066bis].]
>   but something like this:
>     This documents uses the terms ..., "extended language range",...
>     from [RFC 3066bis].
>   This will be much shorter, and avoids the impression that
>   "extended language range" is a term invented in this spec.
> - Don't hide what specs should do in a conformance section.
> - Don't mix basic explanations (incl. definitions) with content
>   of the spec, as in section 2.2. You can't *define* language
>   and locale identifiers (or tags, the term 'values' is a bad
>   choice in this case) to conform to RFC 3066bis syntax and
>   then again *define* in very general terms what these things
>   are for.
> Anyway, this is just a first draft, so further suggestions
> of how to improve the document are very welcome.
> Regards,    Martin.
> At 18:11 06/04/24, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:18:25 +0200, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> It's not entirely clear to me what the purpose of having
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ltli-20060419/ is. It seems to state that
>>>> you have to follow RFC 3066bis (or BCP 47, later on the Recommendation
>>>> track) in this and that regard and that's basically it. At least,
>>>> according to section 3. This same section states:
>>>>    The purpose of the criteria is to provide a stable
>>>>    source for requirements for language and locale
>>>>    identification.
>>>> ... isn't that what BCP 47 is for?
>>> BCP 47 is for language identification. The important bit in ltli will be
>>>  the differentiation between language and locale. This will rely mainly
>>> on RFC 3066bis.
>>Wasn't BCP 47 going to be 3066bis? (I was talking about the revised BCP
>>47, sorry for being unclear.)

Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 05:25:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:20:15 UTC