W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Comment on LTLI WD: purpose?

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:37:33 +0900
Message-Id: <>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org

Hello Anne,

I think you are right that it is difficult to understand
at the moment why this document is needed on top of what
in a few weeks or months should be BCP 47 (what's currently
RFC 3066bis + the current matching draft).

I think there are various reasons for this. Because this is
only a first working draft, we can still improve this.
Here a few suggestions (mostly for Felix):

- Mention the relevant IETF base specs explicitly in the
   abstract. [but avoid copying the abstract in the STOD]

- Reduce definitions. Terms such as "extended language range"
   should not be redefined here. The correct way to write
   this is not
     [Definition: An extended language range is a language range
      as described in sec. 2.2 of [RFC 3066bis].]
   but something like this:
     This documents uses the terms ..., "extended language range",...
     from [RFC 3066bis].
   This will be much shorter, and avoids the impression that
   "extended language range" is a term invented in this spec.

- Don't hide what specs should do in a conformance section.

- Don't mix basic explanations (incl. definitions) with content
   of the spec, as in section 2.2. You can't *define* language
   and locale identifiers (or tags, the term 'values' is a bad
   choice in this case) to conform to RFC 3066bis syntax and
   then again *define* in very general terms what these things
   are for.

Anyway, this is just a first draft, so further suggestions
of how to improve the document are very welcome.

Regards,    Martin.

At 18:11 06/04/24, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
 >On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 07:18:25 +0200, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
 >>> It's not entirely clear to me what the purpose of having
 >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ltli-20060419/ is. It seems to state that
 >>> you have to follow RFC 3066bis (or BCP 47, later on the Recommendation
 >>> track) in this and that regard and that's basically it. At least,
 >>> according to section 3. This same section states:
 >>>    The purpose of the criteria is to provide a stable
 >>>    source for requirements for language and locale
 >>>    identification.
 >>> ... isn't that what BCP 47 is for?
 >> BCP 47 is for language identification. The important bit in ltli will be
 >>  the differentiation between language and locale. This will rely mainly
 >> on RFC 3066bis.
 >Wasn't BCP 47 going to be 3066bis? (I was talking about the revised BCP
 >47, sorry for being unclear.) 
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 18:08:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:01 UTC