[ESW Wiki] Update of "its0504ReqCulturalAspects" by MasakiItagaki

Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "ESW Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by MasakiItagaki:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqCulturalAspects


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  == Summary ==
  
- It must be possible to specify finer or coarser granularity of cultural aspects of content than a language, locale or country. Such aspects may include script usages, regions, geographical areas, dialects or content context. The declaration of such an attribute should be done at the beginning of a document. Any content within a document which varies from the primary declaration should be labeled appropriately. '''[[FS]]  I would add s.t. like: 'The possible value of the attribute will not be predefined.' I think this is the only way to do this, because otherwise a general model of these cultural aspects would be necessary - that's seems to be impossible to me.'''
+ It must be possible to specify finer or coarser granularity of cultural aspects of content than a language, locale or country. Such aspects may include script usages, regions, geographical areas, dialects or content context. The declaration of such an attribute should be done at the beginning of a document. Any content within a document which varies from the primary declaration should be labeled appropriately.  
-  
  
  == Challenge/Issue ==
  
@@ -29, +28 @@

  
   - '''Finer language variations''': e.g. how does one indicate that a voice track is in the language spoken in German-speaking Switzerland rather than the language written there, since one is Schwytzertuutsch (Swiss Germen) and the other is very close to but not the same as 'High German'? 
  
-  - '''Different writing styles and tones in one language''': e.g. Japanese uses a polite style ("Desu/masu" tone) for user guides and a formal style ("Da/dearu" tone) for academic and legal content. '''[FS-'''The Japanese example is too strict (I am currently struggeling with a Japanese user guide for wireless installation, and it is not polite style. Also, da/dearu is not formal style, but informal style.''']''' Italian uses an informal style for software help content and a formal style for user guides.Identifying these variations is very important especially for content reusability. When the content is reused both in source and target languages, context information (such as whether the content is for a user guide or a user help) must be provided in order to reuse content with an appropriate writing style.
+  - '''Different writing styles and tones in one language''': e.g. Japanese uses a polite style ("Desu/masu" tone) for user guides and a formal style ("Da/dearu" tone) for academic and legal content. Italian uses an informal style for software help content and a formal style for user guides.Identifying these variations is very important especially for content reusability. When the content is reused both in source and target languages, context information (such as whether the content is for a user guide or a user help) must be provided in order to reuse content with an appropriate writing style.
  
- '''[[CL]] Looking at the examples I am wondering whether we have to destinguish between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' cultural information. 'prescriptive' information would say for example 'You have to use Da/dearu tone when translating this'. 'descriptive' information would say for example 'All dates are Yoreki'.'''
- 
- [[MI The example of writing tyles are still "descriptive." Nothing here instructs users to use a certain style. It's just information about translation styles or even context that are important to reuse localized content (otherwise, different styles or terms that are dependent on context could be mixed in one set of reused content chunks). Again, this requirement is about something that just a langauge and a locale can't conver. ]]
  
  == Notes ==
- RFC 3066bis called “Tags for Identifying Languages” ([http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-phillips-langtags-10.html#variant]), defines the vast details of the structure and usage of language tags extended from RFC 3066. This proposes ways to define extended language subtags, such as variant subtags, region subtags and private use subtags, which could be solutions for the issues described above. See also supplementary information for RFC 3066bis [http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/rfc3066bis-codes.html].    
+ RFC 3066bis called “Tags for Identifying Languages” ([http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-phillips-langtags-10.html#variant]), defines the vast details of the structure and usage of language tags extended from RFC 3066. This proposes ways to define extended language subtags, such as variant subtags, region subtags and private use subtags, which could be solutions for the issues described above. See also supplementary information for RFC 3066bis [http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/rfc3066bis-codes.html].  
+ 
+ '''[MI] Felix previously had the following comment: "I would add s.t. like: 'The possible value of the attribute will not be predefined.' I think this is the only way to do this, because otherwise a general model of these cultural aspects would be necessary - that's seems to be impossible to me."
+ 
+ Now, please notice that the NOTES section refers "variant subtags." Now I might need some more discussion on this since some argue that allwoing variants for this type of information is not a good idea (because localization tools cannot know what exactly are all properties). For example, when someone defined "en_US_south" as cultural indication for southern US English (I'm just making this up, OK?), how does the tool know "south" is for souther English? So allowing such variants may disrupt tool functionality. So I would like to discuss this point with you.'''
+   
  
  == Quick Guideline Thoughts ==

Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 05:35:26 UTC