W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Transliteration

From: Carrasco Benitez Manuel <manuel.carrasco@emea.eudra.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:37:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5DFB753C1329D1119DEC00805F15C342608097@WS015>
To: www-international@w3.org, tc46sc2@elot.gr, Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no
Trying to re-center the discussion:

 1) The objective is to find a way to tag the
    "language transformation".

 2) "Language transformation" is expressing
     a (source) language in another form with
     some relation to a (target) second language.
     Tradicionally, transliteration (transformation
     of writing) or transcription (transformation
     of sound).
     It is not translation; the text is always in
     the source language, but somehow transformed.

    *Warning*: This is a mine field and the
     discussion can go for ever.

 3) The reason for proposing the extension
     of RFC-1766 is because:

      3.1) It does *not*  break RFC-1766.

      3.2) It "feels" like a natural extension
             and the "right" place to do it.

      3.3) It is an easy to implement.

      3.4) No need to change HTTP, HTML, etc.

      3.5) It could be available soon.

 4) It could be that this is the "wrong" place
     to put it and that one has to look at RDF
     or similar places.

     By the same argument, one would not need the
     "content-language".  The client (one he
     know the "charset") could look itself in
     the document for the language and other
     metadata. But HTTP has a "fat-ish" header.

     RFC-1766 is use for the header in the
     transmission and for the metadata of the
     document.  My proposal tries to follow the
     same doctrine.

Received on Monday, 19 October 1998 06:37:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:18 UTC