W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Update: LTLI Working Draft

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:21:18 +0900
To: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.szntpsz1x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 18:19:27 +0900, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>  

> At 01:00 05/11/02, Addison Phillips wrote:
>  >4. Section 1.2 "Out of Scope". Actually, I think that this document (or
>  >some document produced by this WG as part of this effort) should  
> directly
>  >deal with guidelines for choosing language tags as well as for  
> choosing and
>  >implementing matching schemes. The distinction between language  
> negotiation
>  >and locale negotiation is an important one, but language-based  
> processing
>  >is an extant problem poorly understood by most implementers. It is my  
> hope
>  >that this document can help clarify that.
> One thing I remember from the last time I have read the 'matching' draft
> is that I thought there isn't enough guidance for users (e.g. other IETF
> WGs,...) about which matching scheme to choose. I can very well immagine
> some IETF WG reading the 'matching' document and be rather confused about
> what which one to choose. So to the extent possible, I'd prefer that as
> much as possible about 'choosing matching schemes' goes into the IETF
> draft.

If I understood Addison right, another problem with the previous version  
of 1.2 "Out of Scope" was that the section said "this spec is mainly for  
identifying language as a value", and not the language of content:

"A common application of language identification is realized with the  
attribute xml:lang from the XML namespace. In these cases, xml:lang is  
used to express language information directly associated with the XML  
document (either contained within the document directly or considered part  
of the document when it is processed or rendered). Such usage of language  
identification to directly label any natural language content is out of  
the scope of this specification."

As it is worded now, the doc is about both the language of content and  
identifying language as a value.

Regards, Felix.

> [If the situation in the matching draft has changed, that would be good.
> I'll of course make that comment on the LTRU list as soon as possible.]
> Regards,   Martin.
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 10:21:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:01:09 UTC