- From: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:28:35 +0100 (MET)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I don't want to be perceived as destructive, but there are at least two other aspects (although very specific) which make any semantic emphasis of language changes difficult and/or not practical: Case 1 is the use of content management systems which enable technically not inevitably experienced editors to create and publish texts -- it will get difficult or even impossible a) to create simple and usable mechanisms to emphasize other language words and b) to maybe coach and above all motivate all editors to use these mechanisms. Case 2 are old or 'dead' languages -- is e.g. the entire Latin vocabulary treated as part of each language? Is it treated separately (and has to be marked up as ISO 639-1 conform 'la')? Are there problems with user-agents reading Latin text? It might be very difficult to remove the at least rhetorically important Latin vocabulary from more or less sophisticated texts. I really like the enthusiasm in this discussion, as I appreciate all altruistic intentions on this list, but I never felt that sceptical facing this challenge. If it is recommended (not mandatory) to emphasize terms in another language, I can live with it -- otherwise I fear the day when having to write <p xml:lang="en"><span xml:lang="fr">Résumé</span>: My <span xml:lang="la">conclusio</span> implies a reasonable use of language to make sure all people over the world are satisfied with what I'm saying. Maybe someone has problems with my firstname, since <xml:lang="de">Jens</span> might be difficult to spell in some languages; even <xml:lang="de">VW</span> now has problems to define a correct language to its brand. But since <em>they</em> prohibited spelling misttakes, all the rest seems fine.</p> All the best, Jens. -- Jens Meiert Interface Architect http://meiert.com/
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 12:28:37 UTC