RE: [css3-text] Better wording than "known to be language X" (was line-break questions/comments

>> I'll ask i18n WG for any better wording suggestion. If you have
>> good suggestion, that's appreciated too. If nobody can come up
>> with better suggestion, I think we should conclude that the
>> current wording is the best one. Does this sound reasonable?

> The current language is unacceptable and misleading without
> further clarification, as it implies textual/linguistic analysis.
> If the following informative text were added in a new Section 1.4
> "Conventions", then I would be satisfied:
>
> <quote>
> A phrase of the form "known to be X" where X is a language
> name, e.g., "known to be Japanese", is intended to be determined
> using markup alone, and does not imply a requirement to perform
> linguistic analysis (i.e., language recognition) of associated text
> content."
> </quote>

The wording you suggested still overrides what content document spec defines, so I guess it is inappropriate for us to write this. HTTP meta header, Tools/Options, or system language are not "markup alone." Also, we should not prohibit content document format to use linguistic analysis; it's up to content document format to define this. CSS should be neutral to content document and should not force other specs to do something, if I understand correctly.

It looks like you want an explicit statement in the case content document is HTML, so probably what you want is something like this:

<quote>
For example, if the content language is HTML, the rule to determine the content language is defined in [[!HTML5]].
</quote>

But then I found this is almost complete copy of the text in the Terminology section[1], and looks redundant to me.

<quote>
Refer to the <i>content language</i> section for how UA should determine the content language.
</quote>

Does this work for you?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#content-language


Regards,
Koji

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 00:47:36 UTC