Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Serialization of natural language in data formats such as JSON [I18N] (#178)

And, for the record here, that discussion was reasonably productive and I think (if I'm recalling correctly) focused on two things:
* an object that can be used where a string would be used, but also carries language and direction information, such as `{text: "Moby Dick", lang: "en", dir: "rtl" }` (could use `text` or `value` or other things there)
* the ability to set defaults within a JSON object perhaps with `lang` and `dir` or perhaps with something like `default_lang` and `default_dir` (or should that be camelCase?), though this has both advantages (compactness) and disadvantages (need to augment the objects to readd the defaults in order to pass them around)

There was then further discussion about how to use the former in contexts where multiple languages needed to be provided (i.e., ability to use array or dictionary, where the dictionary has redundancy but may allow faster lookup assuming appropriate use of BCP49 language codes).  The redundancy is, however, preferably to having objects that can't be passed around because the language from the dictionary key needs to be added back on.

There was also a bit of discussion about JSON vs. WebIDL that I've forgotten.

The next step was that @aphillips was going to revise [the string-meta document](https://w3c.github.io/string-meta/) along these lines and then post it for review from those of us present (and others, if interested).  So leaving the `pending-external-feedback` label.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/178#issuecomment-346158245