W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2004

Re: Language Identifier List up for comments

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:37:14 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20041217153137.05dc48e0@localhost>
To: andrea.vine@sun.com, www-international@w3.org
Cc: "'IETF Languages'" <ietf-languages@iana.org>

Hello Andrea,

Good thoughts, so here is some arrows.

At 04:30 04/12/17, A. Vine wrote:
 >
 >In all this discussion, I've been thinking that it makes sense to have 
(OK, I'm waiting for the arrows) 2 separate identifiers; one for written 
and one for voice.

Do you mean two distinct sets of identifier values? Or two different
attributes in XML, e.g. xml:lang and xml:spokenlang? Or what else?

It should be kept in mind that xml:lang is just something declarative.
I.e. you say what language you think it is, you don't say what processing
you expect. If you have an en-us text, and you want it to be read with
a NY accent, then the best way to do this is to e.g. declare a NY
accent voice in the stylesheet or other mechanism that reads the
document.

For recorded speach, this is of coures different; in that case,
the spoken language/dialect/accent isn't the result of some processing,
but it is a primary property of the data. But then, such data rarely
gets encoded directly into XML.

Regards,    Martin.

 >It's very clear that the written language is much more generic than the 
voice language, and that being too specific in tagging may cause the 
document to be passed over when it could actually be useful.
 >
 >True there are other issues with language identification, but this one 
stands out as having a solution.  Something to think about bringing up to 
the HTML/XML tag folks...
 >
 >:-D just a thought,
 >Andrea
 >
 >Richard Ishida wrote:
 >
 >>
 >>>Since there are only two tags for CN, zh-CN and zh-hans-CN, would those 
who argue for not overdifferentiating tags, recommend just the simpler zh-CN?
 >>>Similarly for TW, just zh-TW?
 >>
 >> What does zh-CN mean?
 >> It is most commonly used as far as I'm aware to indicate text written in the
 >> Simplified Chinese script.  For identification of the script I think we
 >> should recommend zh-Hans first these days - although we need to add caveats
 >> about the fact that some applications won't recognise it (eg. for automatic
 >> application of fonts in Unicode encoded Web pages on some browsers (see
 >> http://www.w3.org/International/tests/results/lang-and-cjk-font). There are
 >> not a huge number of applications, as far as I'm aware.)
 >> Use of zh-CN doesn't seem to make sense for identifying spoken Chinese,
 >> since there are many dialects in China.  I think one should recommend
 >> zh-guoyu, zh-yue, etc. for this purpose.
 >> Note also that Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, etc are spoken in many parts of
 >> the world.  My expectation is that the use of CN would only be appropriate
 >> if one wanted to explicitly make the point that one was referring to the
 >> language as spoken in Mainland China - ie. that there is some particular
 >> characteristic of the instance of text or audio recording that was
 >> idiosyncratic to that particular area as a whole.
 >> And now what does zh-TW mean?  Well usually text written in Traditional
 >> Chinese script, although the we could repeat much of what I wrote above
 >> about zh-CN for this too.  zh-TW taken literally means the Chinese spoken in
 >> Taiwan - which happens to be Mandarin.  So unless you have particular
 >> distinguishing features in mind, perhaps, again you should just use
 >> zh-guoyu.
 >> Then there's the question: what are we doing with this page?  Describing
 >> current usage or recommending best practises.  If the latter, perhaps zh-CN
 >> and zh-TW should only appear on the page if clearly marked as edge cases.
 >>
 >> Btw, what does de-CH represent in the table?  Swiss German is different from
 >> de-DE, and rarely written, and then has little consistency to its
 >> orthography.  There are also many local variants to Swiss German across
 >> Switzerland, which would seem to invite a large number of additions to this
 >> table.  But presumably de-CH refers to the way de-DE German is written in
 >> Switzerland or spoken by newsreaders there (and there are a small number of
 >> significant differences here from de-DE.)?  If so, we ought to clarify that
 >> in the table.
 >> I think this kind of process could be applied to many other parts of the
 >> second table, which worries me.  I can't help thinking that it might be
 >> better to talk through some examples of when to use en and when to use en-GB
 >> or en-US, talk through the choices for particular problem areas like chinese
 >> and swiss german, and so on, rather than to just list these combinations,
 >> most of which you could determine pretty easily anyway if you gave what you
 >> were doing a small amount of thought and had access to a list of country
 >> codes.
 >> What might be more useful is to say, here is the simplest form to identify
 >> this language (eg. 'en'), and in the next column are a bunch of potential
 >> country or other codes you may want to consider using in conjunction with
 >> this.  Rather than, "This table lists the languages" and " require a
 >> language subtag and country subtag".
 >> RI
 >>
 >>
 > 
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 07:56:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:04 GMT