Re: [public-personalization-tf] <none>

+1 to Lisa’s proposed wording “Personalization notes that there is ambiguity regarding the formatting of language. We recommend authors also confirm BCP47 in cases where this would not unnecessarily restrict user activity.”

I wonder about going slightly further and including the word “value” and wrapping it in an <em> element where possible for clarity:

“Personalization notes that there is ambiguity regarding the formatting of language _value_. We recommend authors also confirm BCP47 in cases where this would not unnecessarily restrict user activity.”

Best regards,


Matthew
--
Matthew Tylee Atkinson
--
Senior Accessibility Engineer
TPG Interactive
https://www.tpgi.com

A Vispero Company
https://www.vispero.com

--
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately.
Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 18:37
To: public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Subject: [public-personalization-tf] <none>
Resent from: <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Resent date: Sunday, 11 April 2021 at 18:37

HI

I saw in the minutes that we are proposing the following note:
 Personalization notes that there is ambiguity regarding the formatting of language: i18n requested adherence to BCP47 but there is a strong opinion that such adherence would restrict user activity unnecessarily

Can we say something more diplomatic such as: Personalization notes that there is ambiguity regarding the formatting of language. We recommend authors also confirm BCP47 in cases where this would not unnecessarily restrict user activity.

All the best

Lisa