W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:01:48 +0100
Message-ID: <5134EF9C.1070709@w3.org>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
CC: www-international <www-international@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hi Addison,

Am 04.03.13 19:24, schrieb Phillips, Addison:
> Hi Felix,
> I don't think the form of the attributes matters;


>   either is equivalent, although having two types of attribute let you do interesting things like:
> <p its-locale-filter-list="en" its-locale-exclude-list="*-CA">An English message not shown to Canadians</p>

That can be interesting indeed - however it might also cause 
interpretation problems: what to do about

<p its-locale-filter-list="de" its-locale-exclude-list="de-1901">Ist 
dieser Inhalt relevant oder nicht?

So if there is no strong use case for this I'd rather not go this route.

> Another way to approach the problem without adding attributes is to define your language priority list structure to be more complex than just a comma-separated list. An example of this would be the Accept-Language header defined by HTTP, which uses "q" weights to control how the list is ordered. For example, you might have one that looks like:
>     Accept-Language: en;q=1.0,fr;q=0.6
> An obvious extension to this would be to define negative weights or a "0.0" weight to exclude items. Then you might have:
> <p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA">something Canadian</p>
> <p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA;q=0.0">something non-Canadian</p>
> Of course, you are free to define a different LPL structure from that used by HTTP (or anyone else) and this can include things like negation and so forth.
> My suggestion has the disadvantage that you'd then have to write an alternate matching scheme (BCP 47 Extended Filtering, which is what you use now, doesn't describe this). This isn't necessarily a Bad Thing: your requirements may be different. But I'd tend to be conservative in creating novel matching schemes.

Fully agree.

- Felix

> Addison
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:05 AM
>> To: Phillips, Addison
>> Cc: www-international; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47
>> Hi Addison,
>> thanks for the feedback - we had something like this in a previous ITS2 draft,
>> see the localeFilterType attribute at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20120731/#EX-locale-filter-selector-1
>> the only difference to what you propose is that localeFilterType is a separate
>> attribute in addition to a main "list" attribute, whereas you have two attributes.
>> Best,
>> Felix
>> Am 04.03.13 18:48, schrieb Phillips, Addison:
>>> Hi Felix,
>>> Language tags (and language ranges) are mostly about selection, so there is
>> no built-in means of doing what you're looking for. I don't think adding such a
>> subtag would be a good idea either (where would you put it where it wouldn't
>> be disturbed by a fallback mechanism? What happens if your value is a
>> language priority list?).
>>> I think a better means of doing this is having a separate attribute that is like
>> "its-locale-filter-list", only as an exclusion list ("its-locale-exclusion-list"). Then it
>> is easy to write:
>>> <p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA">Legal notice for Canada</p> <p
>>> its-locale-exclusion-list="*-CA">Legal notice for all other
>>> countries</p>
>>> Addison
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:40 AM
>>>> To: www-international
>>>> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
>>>> Subject: "Saying that something is not in a locale" with BCP 47
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> at
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-
>>>> lt/2013Feb/0318.html
>>>> the MLW-LT WG is discussing a use case of expressing that something
>>>> is not in a locale. One way to do this is to add a flag to a BCP 47
>>>> value, see above cited mail. Another way could be to have in a markup
>>>> environment an additional attribute expressing the "include" vs "exclude"
>> options for the BCP 47 value.
>>>> Thoughts? This is probably an additional piece of information rather
>>>> than part of a BCP47 value itself. Has such a use case been discussed for
>> BCP47 values?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Felix
>>>> (this is action-454 for the MLW-LT WG)
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 19:02:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:34 UTC