W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

RE: [css3-text] Better wording than "known to be language X" (was line-break questions/comments

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:43:04 +0200
To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, ML public-i18n-core (public-i18n-core@w3.org) <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120829154304700148.c5e1b043@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Hi! If the language is unknown, then the language is unidentifiable. 
How about this combination of 'unidentifiable' and 'unknown':

]] Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to 
be unidentifiable. Either because the language is implicitly unknown 
due to lack of a language declaration mechanism that applies to the 
document language of the current document, or because the language is 
explicitly declared to be unknown.[[

This is partly inspired by HTML5, which discerns between "known" and 
"explicitly unknown".[1] 

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/global-attributes.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes

Leif H Silli

Koji Ishii, Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:51:35 -0400:
> I like "identified", although, I have to admit that my English 
> knowledge doesn't give me only vague distinction between "know" and 
> "identify."
> 
> There's a sentence in the content language Terminology[1]:
>   Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to 
> be unknown.
> 
> Should this also be:
>   Note that it is possible for the content language of an element 
> could not be identified.
> ?
> 
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#content-language
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:18 AM
> To: Koji Ishii
> Cc: Glenn Adams; W3C Style; public-i18n-cjk@w3.org; ML 
> public-i18n-core (public-i18n-core@w3.org)
> Subject: Re: [css3-text] Better wording than "known to be language X" 
> (was line-break questions/comments
> 
> One problem is the verb 'known' which implies some knowledge on the 
> part of some reader, i.e. the verb identifies an agent outside the 
> scope of the specification.  Perhaps it would be better to use a verb 
> that talks about what the reader is told, rather than what they 
> deduce or conclude?  
> 
> "identified as language [x]"
> "identified by the rules of the enclosing context as being in 
> language [x]" (a bit wordy) "labeled as language [x]" (though some 
> identification is not via 'labelling')
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 13:43:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:59 GMT