W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: XMLLiterals and language

From: Stephen Deach <sdeach@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:39:18 -0800
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Reto Bachmann-Gmuer <reto@gmuer.ch>
Cc: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-international@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20050119083629.01fdd170@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Isn't encoding dialect the purpose of the variant component of a locale 
specifier.

Also,
   What's wrong with "en-IT" for English as spoken in Italy ?


At 2005.01.19-16:29(+0000), Jeremy Carroll wrote:



>I am not at all convinced that this issue is irrelevant outside the
>semantic web domain. e.g. a text-to-speech system should, pronounce
>english words quite differently when in an italian mode, since italian
>speakers typically use italian pronounciation rules for english words
>being used in italian sentences. As an English mother-tongue speaker,
>with reasonable italian the most difficult sentences I find to
>understand are such mixed sentences.
>
><span xml:lang="it">
>Abbiamo fatto questo lavoro per il progetto
><span xml:lang="en">"Question How"</span>
></span>
>
>the words "question how" are pronounced quite differently from in
>English (even when the mother tongue italian speaker is a fluent english
>speaker). (bitter experience here!)
>
>Jeremy
>
>Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
> >
> > Martin Duerst wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me that what Reto is looking for is a way to define
> >> a "primary language" for a small piece of data that itself is in
> >> a different language. Because such divergent cases are very rare,
> >> it seems they have been overlooked up to now.
> >>
> >>
> > I don't think this cases are that rare, looking at German computer books
> > many titles consist only of English words, however they are the German
> > titles (the first is relevant for pronunciation, the latter for semantic
> > processing).
> >
> >> To me, the right thing to do seems to be to define the "primary"
> >> or "intended" language separately (e.g. with a separate property),
> >> but to define that property so that it defaults to the text
> >> processing language.
> >>
> > Having a primary language for Literals would be fine, however I think
> > the text processing language (specified in the xml) should default to
> > the primary language (which imho should be defined by means of rdf)
> > rather than the other way round. This seems more coherent with
> > plain-literals and particularly it does not require RDF-Processors to
> > understand and parse XML in order to do things like filtering by language.
> >
> >> I'm glad to report that I just found the 'payload' module in
> >> RSS 1.1 (http://inamidst.com/rss1.1/payload) that uses XML
> >> Literals rather than encoding. Great!
> >
> >
> > That's cool, and it would be cooler with the possibility to specify a
> > language for the whole payload (even when some of the rare cases apply).
> >
> > reto
> >
> >


---Steve Deach
    sdeach@adobe.com 
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:39:47 GMT

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