RE: LTLI draft: changes

Hi Felix,

Thanks for all of these changes!

> I'm puzzled about some comments, since my impression was that you and Mark
> had agreement on the changes in the target sections (I did not much more
> than implementing your discussion). But I'm o.k. with that.

Sometimes there are differences when you see the text in context as compared
to in an email thread.

> done, though I wonder if "For example, by an implementation could map a
> language tag from an existing protocol, such as HTTP's Accept-Language
> header, to its locale model." is a correct English sentence. Well, you
> know better than me ...

The word "by" is a typo and should be removed.

> I have taken the example out again, but note that Mark said at
> :
> "I'm ok with that [taking the text out]. Then this can be recast as an
> example (an important one)."

Yes, I recall his comment. However, the example is inappropriate in this
context because it suggests (heck, it states directly) that implementations
should map underscores and hyphens. This document, IMO, should make hyphens
normative. This makes the example one showing how a "proprietary" locale
model maps to a "W3C locale identifier" (and it is an excellent and valid
example of that... but context matters).

> In fact, I would
> > tighten up your terminology as we've done with 3066bis and be strict
> about
> > saying "language tags" (and not "parameters", "values", "identifiers",
> and
> > so forth).
> Done for "parameters", "values", "identifiers". The change is sometimes
> difficult, look at this sentence:
> "Existing standards which make use of language identification includes the
> xml:lang attribute in [XML 1.0], ..."
> saying "tags" instead of "identification" doesn't make sense here.
> Also, in your text proposal "Historically, natural language identifiers"
> it seems to me "identifiers" is more appropriate than "tags".

Agreed. "Language identification" is a process, please note, not a noun
(language tags are used in language identification :-) ). The second
instance you cite is also appropriate. I just found that the terminology was
inconsistently applied.

Otherwise: looks good. I look forward to future revisions.


Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki []
> Sent: 2006年5月16日 3:23

Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2006 19:15:09 UTC