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: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:21:18 +0900
Message-ID: <444F2D7E.1050109@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, all,

I implemented Martin's comments. I have one problem remaining:
How to define "locale" ...
The new section 1.5 says:
[Language and locale values are values which are compliant to [RFC
3066bis].]
Which is not 100% true, since RFC3066bis talks only about language values.

I also don't understand Martin's comment:
[ - Don't hide what specs should do in a conformance section.]

Please have a look at the draft at
http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/

Regards, Felix.

> 
> 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, 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 Wednesday, 26 April 2006 08:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:35 GMT