W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: [Ltru] Re: For review: Tagging text with no language

From: <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:01:59 -0700
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Cc: ltru@lists.ietf.org, www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF21909A7D.4F189EE3-ON882572BC.007CDA89-882572BC.007EB0A4@spe.sony.com>
Well, if the code section is delimited with a consistent tag, you know to 
treat what's in there differently than the rest of the text. I used to 
edit technical tutorials for O'Reilly, so trust me, the <code> tag and I 
are old friends. On that site the code tag drives style sheets, but it is 
really a semantic delimiter -- not a design element -- and can potentially 
be used for a lot more. I'm a bit leery of spellcheckers for code.

But as long as the code section is delimited, you can write spellcheckers 
or screenreaders that  will handle that text differently.

I did not request a SHOULD NOT with "no linguistic content." My request 
was that script tags SHOULD NOT be used with linguistic *audio* content 
because spoken language, by definition, is not written down. I really 
don't have much use for the zxx tag.  I saw a use case that related to 
und-Latn that made sense, but zxx-Latn makes no sense to me. Did I miss 
that thread or is that a typo?


Karen Broome

Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> 
04/13/2007 02:33 PM

[Ltru] Re: For review: Tagging text with no language

Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com wrote:
> With respect to computer language snippets, isn't that what the <code>
> tag is for -- at least in XHTML?

Yes, typically interpreted as switch to a monospaced font.  But maybe
not good enough to convince spell-checkers that they should skip this
part, or to convince screenreaders that what follows might be not in
the inherited xml:lang.

While we're at it, IIRC you wanted a SHOULD NOT about script subtags
for "no linguistic content".  Mark's list of interesting examples also
contains a "zxx" use case, and it's clearly a zxx-Latn example.

Apparently the SHOULD NOT in RFC 4646 about "und" is already dubious,
so better we don't add another shaky SHOULD NOT about scripts for "zxx".


Ltru mailing list
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 23:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:28 UTC