- From: Tantek Çelik via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:12:42 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
@azaroth42 agreed that "I don't like the way you wrote that" is just not helpful at this stage. I believe the larger problem is one of not just "not needed", but rather, as this thread has uncovered: unproven, untested, and likely insufficient. A broken feature is typically worse than none. Since apparently no other JSON-based spec uses such an approach (sideband properties per text property), textDirection and processingLanguage are a first time "hypothetical" and definitely aspirational proposal themselves. I'm worried that they will give the appearance of satisfying i18n requirements, when in practice they won't (we don't know, and the burden of proof is on prototyping/implementability/usability, not on the absence thereof), and that will put us a worse position (broken features, backcompat headaches) than if they were absent. Aside: In general W3C work (web platform in particular) is frowning on anything aspirational being REC-track at this point. Not completely consistently across W3C yet, but more and more, and this (Annotations) may be an instance worth paying attention to in that regard. A concrete proposal would be drop these two aspirational properties, and instead provide a note explaining the limitations (as uncovered by i18n folks) in this version of the spec. Additional optional details: * instead of textDirection, implementations should use Unicode directional control chars if present, otherwise use the "first strong" etc. algorithms described by the i18n folks. * instead of processingLanguage, implementations should use the HTTP Content-Language returned on the resource as a base -- GitHub Notification of comment by tantek Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335#issuecomment-237636530 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2016 18:12:51 UTC