On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote: > I like "identified", although, I have to admit that my English knowledge > doesn't give me only vague distinction between "know" and "identify." > > There's a sentence in the content language Terminology[1]: > Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to be > unknown. > > Should this also be: > Note that it is possible for the content language of an element could > not be identified. > fantasai's suggested change is sufficient; i would suggest leaving the current definition alone in the content language definition; e.g., what does "unknown" mean: - unknown to author; e.g., author is speaking in tongues [but can transcribe it!] - known to author, but no "identification" specified, e.g., author writes in Japanese, but doesn't add 'ja' locale, etc. - known to author, and no "identification" specified, but known (recognizable) to reader/decoder in absence of identification, e.g., author writes in Japanese, fails to specify language identity, but reader recognizes and "knows" language - known to author, and no "identification" specified, but unknown (recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, fails to specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese and has no clue of language - known to author, and "identification" specified, but unknown (recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, does specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese (even though the language is identified and thus the reader may have a hint in order to hire a translator) trying to be more specific here may lead down a bit of a slipper slope
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 08:21:24 UTC