- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:04:46 -0000
- To: <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
This is to make you aware of a discussion on the WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative) list. A short while ago there was an interesting discussion on the WAI list on whether a loan-words or phrases should be marked up for language [ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0411.html thread ]. My conclusion was that one should consider the impact of not marking up to decide - if markup wasn't likely to help it may not be worthwhile. Today I noticed another mail on the list questioning whether character encoding information would be enough to identify language change, given that "There is a lot of burden in the requiring of the <Lang> tag. Most sites will have vocational English words in the middle of Hebrew Paragraphs." See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0610.html and following thread. (I wrote back to not confuse language with script, but also wondered whether Hebrew systems can deal with embedded English text anyway.) I'm not sure what is the best answer - one can see that this could be a pain for the content author if taken to the nth degree. But where is the appropriate cutoff? RI ============ Richard Ishida W3C contact info: http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ http://www.w3.org/International/ http://www.w3.org/International/geo/ W3C Internationalization FAQs http://www.w3.org/International/questions.html RSS feed: http://www.w3.org/International/questions.rss
Received on Monday, 22 December 2003 07:05:20 UTC