RE: LTLI draft: changes

Please remove www-i18n-comments in further cross-posts!

This thread started on www-i18n-comments, the list given for
comments in the document. Somebody (maybe me) added in public-i18n-core
to make sure everybody in the WG sees the comments. However, this
now means that everybody who is also on www-i18n-comments receives
the discussion (which has long since changed from a discussion of
an external comment to a WG internal discussion) twice, which is
annoying. So please remove www-i18n-comments in further cross-posts!
(I'm leaving it in here to properly document the the discussion has
moved.)

Regards,     Martin.


At 03:42 06/05/17, Addison Phillips wrote:
 >
 >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
 >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006May/0004.html :
 >> "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
 >
 >Addison Phillips
 >Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
 >
 >Internationalization is an architecture.
 >It is not a feature.
 >> -----Original Message-----
 >> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
 >> Sent: 2006年5月16日 3:23
 >>
 >>

Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 06:04:39 UTC