W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2008

RE: Original vs. tranlsation content negotiation

From: Phillips, Addison <addison@amazon.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:51:55 -0700
To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA014A4ECCD5@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
(personal response)

First: I really wish that the HTML WG would ask the I18N WG stuff directly rather than *wondering* about what the WG "thinks". I'm glad to see this note, but wish there weren't a dozen messages in the archive wondering what the I18N people were up to :-).

I tend to agree with the idea that additional markup is wanted for this purpose. I'm not sure that this markup belongs in HTML5, though. I especially disagree with Hixie's comment in [1]. Changing the syntax of "lang", especially in a way incompatible with existing usage (just BCP 47 language tags and nothing else) would be deeply harmful and incompatible. For example, how would this play with the nascent ability to use the CSS 2.1 :lang pseudo-attribute?!? Language tags should, IMHO, do their job as language tags and not do double or triple duty as translation identifiers, etc.

As you note, if you want to add some special gunk to a language tag, you should use private-use or you should register an extension (see RFC 4646 for details).

However, I don't think that an extension makes a lot of sense here. This "single-note" extension strikes me as difficult to work with and adds little value--while complicating matching of language tags, language negotiation, etc. 

I see the thread has considered the ITS tag set [2]. It already defines elements/attributes for indicating translatability. There is no reason I can think of to invent a new syntax for this. Admittedly, the syntax you propose matches ITS to some extent, but you should reference ITS for this rather than have something "similar". That's why it exists. I find other's desire not to allow namespaces mystifying.

I hope that helps as a starter. I'm sure the WG will have something or other to say :-).

Addison

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jul/0451.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/its/


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Leif Halvard Silli
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 7:35 PM
> To: www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Original vs. tranlsation content negotiation
> 
> 
> Hi - now in the HTML Working Group we discuss wither a
> translate="no"
> attribute is needed. The idea is to give a way to specify which
> parts of
> a document machine translation should translate or not - as some
> phrases
> etc should often remain in the native language.
> 
> I joined in, here:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0005.html

> 
> Basically I suggested that one could register e.g. the the q as a
> singleton and then use e.g. -q-orginal to inform that a document
> makes
> up the original. Simply put, this could be done this way for the
> LINK
> element (and the HTTP link header):
> 
> <link lang=fr-q-original rel=alternate href=text.french.htm >
> 
> And for HTTP:
> 
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="fr-q-original" >
> 
> Ok - I am ready to be shot down. :-)
> --
> leif  halvard silli

Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 04:52:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:18 GMT