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

RE: LTLI draft: changes

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:29:23 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <1126.84.35.81.2.1147926563.squirrel@webmail.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org

> Hi Felix,
>
> Thanks for all of these changes!

thanks for all these comments :)

>
>> I'm puzzled about some comments, since my impression was that you and
>> Mark
>> had agreement on the changes in the target sections (I did not much more
>> than implementing your discussion). But I'm o.k. with that.
>
> Sometimes there are differences when you see the text in context as
> compared
> to in an email thread.

np.

>
>> done, though I wonder if "For example, by an implementation could map a
>> language tag from an existing protocol, such as HTTP's Accept-Language
>> header, to its locale model." is a correct English sentence. Well, you
>> know better than me ...
>
> The word "by" is a typo and should be removed.

done.

>
>>
>> I have taken the example out again, but note that Mark said at
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006May/0004.html
>> :
>> "I'm ok with that [taking the text out]. Then this can be recast as an
>> example (an important one)."
>
> Yes, I recall his comment. However, the example is inappropriate in this
> context because it suggests (heck, it states directly) that
> implementations
> should map underscores and hyphens. This document, IMO, should make
> hyphens
> normative. This makes the example one showing how a "proprietary" locale
> model maps to a "W3C locale identifier" (and it is an excellent and valid
> example of that... but context matters).

o.k.

>
>> In fact, I would
>> > tighten up your terminology as we've done with 3066bis and be strict
>> about
>> > saying "language tags" (and not "parameters", "values", "identifiers",
>> and
>> > so forth).
>>
>> Done for "parameters", "values", "identifiers". The change is sometimes
>> difficult, look at this sentence:
>> "Existing standards which make use of language identification includes
>> the
>> xml:lang attribute in [XML 1.0], ..."
>> saying "tags" instead of "identification" doesn't make sense here.
>> Also, in your text proposal "Historically, natural language identifiers"
>> it seems to me "identifiers" is more appropriate than "tags".
>
> Agreed. "Language identification" is a process, please note, not a noun
> (language tags are used in language identification :-) ). The second
> instance you cite is also appropriate. I just found that the terminology
> was
> inconsistently applied.
>
> Otherwise: looks good. I look forward to future revisions.

thanks. I look forward for new comments.

Felix

>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
>
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: 2006?516 3:23
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 04:29:25 GMT

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