On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:54 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > On 08/27/2012 05:13 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> >> The current language is unacceptable and misleading without further >> clarification, as it implies textual/linguistic analysis. >> If the following informative text were added in a new Section 1.4 >> "Conventions", then I would be satisfied: >> >> <quote> >> A phrase of the form "known to be X" where X is a language name, e.g., >> "known to be Japanese", is intended to be determined >> using markup alone, and does not imply a requirement to perform >> linguistic analysis (i.e., language recognition) of associated >> text content." >> </quote> >> > > The spec says > # The content language of an element is the (human) language the element > is > # declared to be in, according to the rules of the document language. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^**^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The rules for determining the content language are deferred, in their > entirety, > to the document language. I don't think that saying anything about how > those > rules are formulated is within scope. I agree, and that is not what I am asking for here. I'm really asking for something very simple: connect the dots from "known to be X language" to "content language" [and its deferred rules]. Surely you and Koji are capable of solving this minor editorial problem?!Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:59:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:14 UTC