W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: Additional i18n RDF last call comments

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:43:51 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20031119004127.071febd8@localhost>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Cc: w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org

Dear RDF WG,

This serves to inform you that the I18N WG at its teleconference
today agreed to endorse as WG comments these comments I made as
personal comments earlier.

[for the minutes, please see
http://www.w3.org/mid/4.2.0.58.J.20031118171109.00aa0d28@localhost
(members only!)]

At 07:53 03/11/07 -0500, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Dear RDF WG,
>
>These are additional internationalization-related comments that
>haven't been discussed by the I18N WG yet. Please accept them as
>personal comments. They may be confirmed as WG comments next week.
>
>
>primer, 2.1, first para: It may help translation to change
>'state this in English' to 'state this in a natural language
>such as English'.
>
>
>primer, fig. 3 and all related examples/discussion: Instead of
>http://www.example.org/terms/language,
>http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/language should be used. There
>is no reason to use a made-up property when there is a well-
>defined property from a well-known vocabulary that is used
>in the same example.
>
>[btw, the description of this property currently reads:
> >>>>>>>>
><dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Recommended best practice is to use RFC 
>3066 [RFC3066],
>                 which, in conjunction with ISO 639 [ISO639], defines two-
>                 and three-letter primary language tags with optional
>                 subtags.  Examples include "en" or "eng" for English,
>                 "akk" for Akkadian, and "en-GB" for English used in the
>                 United Kingdom.</dc:description>
> >>>>>>>>
>
>This is misleading because RFC 3066 explicitly disallows "eng"
>(or more generally, three-letter codes when there is an equivalent
>two-letter code). If possible, please forward this comment or tell
>us where to send it.]
>
>
>primer, section 2.3, fig 5 and related: The address example is on the
>boundary of a generic internationalized address. 'postalCode' is
>very generic, whereas 'street' and 'state' may not be generic enough.
>Also, the address misses the country information. At least this should
>be added; the fields can then be understood as country-specific.
>
>
>primer, example 22: The explanation mentions 'the escaping of reserved
>characters such as ...'. This may be highly misleading. "<" (as a literal
>character) already has to be escaped, and ">" already is escaped in
>the example. Probably changing to "the uniform escaping or unescaping
>of characters" should do the job. On average, there may be more
>unescaping of NCRs when canonicalizing than escaping.
>
>
>primer, general: a few examples in section 6 use xml:lang. It should be
>used much more.
>
>
>In section 6.5, the use of xml:lang for rdfs:label but not for
>rdfs:comment is confusing. Does this suggest that rdfs:label
>can be in multiple languages, but rdfs:comment can only be
>in English?
>
>
>primer, section 6.2: Greece in French is written with grave accent,
>in HTML as Gr&egrave;ce.
>
>
>primer, section 6.3: "Unicode information (such as unicode:script)":
>It is probably better to change this to "Character usage information
>(with properties such as unicode:script)". But the use of an 'Unicode'
>namespace prefix may suggest to some reader that this is some official
>vocabulary defined by the Unicode consortium.
>
>
>
>Regards,    Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 02:09:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:33 GMT