- From: Ivan Herman via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2016 09:50:27 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
> Well ... if the solution is to add some reduncancy becasue some people/scenarios needed, I have not problem with that given that these fields are not mandatory. > However, I have the feeling, or more than that, I'm convinced that the solution is incomplete. > The clients still need "to guess" some properties in order to be able to correclty process the text with NLP or TTS. > > As I indicated above, that "script code" part of RFC 5646 is the key information needed by these algorithms. While this bit of information is still valid to be added in the "language" property (at least accordign to the current specifications), this is not the recommended way to do it. > > Was this aspect discussed? By following the other things that got own fields, like "text direction", I would claim that the "script code" should be also explicitly represented in the annotations. > > If there was no decision/recommendation taken in this direction, I would be glad to create a new ticket > We did discuss, on a slightly more general level, that this solution will not cover all the possible cases and, because the format of the body and target is completely open-ended, it is impossible to cover them. It was agreed that this solution covers the vast majority of the cases (the magic 80/20 cut…) and we would stop there. -- GitHub Notification of comment by iherman Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-222456418 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 May 2016 09:50:28 UTC