- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 09 May 2003 11:40:57 -0500
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: jaccoud@petrobras.com.br, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, w3t@w3.org, w3c-translators@w3.org
On Fri, 2003-05-09 at 11:37, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Friday, May 9, 2003, 6:06:36 PM, Dan wrote: > > > DC> On Fri, 2003-05-09 at 09:40, Chris Lilley wrote: > >> On Friday, May 9, 2003, 3:52:37 PM, jaccoud wrote: > >> > >> jpcb> You have two options: you can use only one Pottuguese entry > >> jpcb> (pt) and put jpcb> all documents there, or create differente > >> jpcb> entries for each localization. Up jpcb> to this date, just pt-PT > >> jpcb> and pt-BR are there, but there are other jpcb> Portuguese parliant > >> jpcb> countries. > >> > >> Since the language tags are hierarchical, a query on "pt" should > >> return those tagged as 'pt' or 'pt-BR' or 'pt-PT' or indeed > >> 'pt-anything-anything-anything' whereas a query on 'pt-BR' (or pt-br > >> or any other case mixture) should return only Brazilian Portugese > >> documents. > > DC> Hmm... that's an interesting idea... > > No.... its not 'an interesting idea' ;-) its how language tags have > been defined ever since RFC 2070. > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2070.txt > > However, reading on, it seems you misunderstood what I was discussing. Yes... sorry for reading too fast. Here's hoping the cost of the diversion ends up being outweighed by resulting benefits... > DC> what sort of query did you have in mind? > > Neither of the ones you list below.... > > I meant "query" in the sense of 'the part of the URI after the ?' > because the URIs just announced for translations use ? for that. In > other words, the query parts of URIs that were just announced in this > thread. > > For example to get translations for just SVG, its > http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byTechnology?technology=SVG > > to get translations just in Finnish, its > http://www.w3.org/2003/03/Translations/byLanguage?language=fi > > So, looking at the language= part, I was just suggesting that it > should work in the way that language tags are defined to work, which > does not seem especially unusual or interesting, just the defined and > correct way.
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:43:32 UTC