- From: asmusf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 01:36:06 +0000
- To: public-i18n-archive@w3.org
On 2/6/2016 4:57 PM, aphillips wrote: > > Regarding "locale-dependent" versus "language-dependent", the > difference is that there is no difference? Or rather: locale-dependent > operations are those that take a locale in order to set the language- > or culturally-dependent behavior. In every programming language I can > think of, case folding and case mapping take a locale (explicitly or > implicitly from the environment) to control their behavior. Unicode > itself has begun delegating tailorings to CLDR. > > The problem is that the above is contradictory to the usage in the > current draft, where I mention locale only a couple of times (and it > is in relation to case folding), but not in Section 2.1. This stems > from past practice in our W3C specs of speaking of "language" for > content where we might otherwise say "locale". (The XML and HTML > attribute is called |lang| after all). > > I will point out that [http://w3c.github.io/ltli/ LTLI] /is/ on this > working group's list of Things To Do... if only we can get CharMod > done ;-). > > I will evaluate making language-vs.-locale terminology consistently > one or the other before closing this issue. > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > <https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/68#issuecomment-180904273>. > The waters get muddied by the habit of using territorial information to designate varieties of language use, and then treating those constructs again as "language". Casing operations should, in principle be tied to an orthography. The latter, if standardized, is usually standardized for a given territory (or group of territories). But once you roll all combinations of territory and language into a single construct each, there's no longer a way to cleanly single out "language" or anything from it. -- GitHub Notification of comment by asmusf Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/charmod-norm/issues/68#issuecomment-180911724 using your GitHub account
Received on Sunday, 7 February 2016 01:36:08 UTC