- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 16:24:40 +0900
- To: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <44AB6938.3080406@w3.org>
Hi all, this is a summary of the LTLI discussion from last week, see http://www.w3.org/2006/06/27-i18ncore-minutes#item01 , and general questions on LTLI. Please regard it also as an input to the meeting in two weeks, where we will discuss LTLI again. - Mark proposed to decide on the general notion of language versus locale, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-core/2006AprJun/0073.html : A) protocols should have two different fields: one for language and one for locale) B) the same field in a protocol can be and is typically used for conveying language *and* locale information) as a "best practice" decision. Currently there is no consensus what view should be preferred. - An issue is whether xml:lang is appropriate for expressing locale information. There is currently no consensus whether xml:lang should be recommended as a means for conveying locale information, or rather only for expressing the language of content. Limiting the first usage for scenarios where a process of information is involved (e.g. constructing web pages via AJAX) might be a solution. - Locale can be described as language information plus "something". That "something" could be e.g. a default currency or time zone information. There might be a consensus (?) that extensions of RFC 3066bis should be limited to areas which are related to language (e.g. for sorting). It is not clear, however, whether LTLI should cover the definition of such extensions. - There are other ways of conveying locale information than via xml:lang, e.g. via programming language identifiers. These use e.g. the underscore instead of the (RFC3066bis) hyphen. Currently there is no consensus whether such variations are acceptable. - LTLI does not necessarily need to specify normative statements on all these issues. Best practices might be enough. - We need more detailed use cases. Mark will provide further input. - A question which has been raised before, but not during our meeting: How should LTLI deal with the matching part of RFC 3066bis? There have been opinions from former WG members that the (again non-normative) explanation of matching could be a main goal for LTLI. Regards, Felix.
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2006 07:25:12 UTC