- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:21:18 +0900
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-i18n-comments@w3.org, member-i18n-core@w3.org
- Message-ID: <444F2D7E.1050109@w3.org>
Hello Martin, all, I implemented Martin's comments. I have one problem remaining: How to define "locale" ... The new section 1.5 says: [Language and locale values are values which are compliant to [RFC 3066bis].] Which is not 100% true, since RFC3066bis talks only about language values. I also don't understand Martin's comment: [ - Don't hide what specs should do in a conformance section.] Please have a look at the draft at http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/ Regards, Felix. > > 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 Wednesday, 26 April 2006 08:21:32 UTC