- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 15:07:11 +0900
- To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
- Cc: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>, www-i18n-comments@w3.org, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4456F70F.9010801@w3.org>
Hi Addison, Mark, all, I started implementing these comments, and the discussion on the locale versus language example at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Apr/0020.html . please have a look at http://www.w3.org/International/core/langtags/ . I have not used change markup, since in this early stage I expect e a lot of changes. Mark Davis wrote: > > I think we need to have a clear discussion about what constitutes a > locale before progressing further. For my mind (language, timezone), > such as (en_US, Etc/GMT) is one of the clearest cases of a locale, so I > don't know what your mental image of a locale is. > > Addison Phillips wrote: >> Hi folks! Nice to see this work progressing... >> >> --- >> Section 1.1: The text describing locales is vague and/or possibly >> sloppy. I think you would be better off being very clear the RFC >> 3066/successor refers to language identification ONLY. Locales can be >> inferred from language identifiers (i.e. Accept-Language) or use >> identical tags in data items (elements, attributes, headers, etc.) >> that serve only the purpose of locale identification. This will help >> preserve (for example) clarity in specs such as XSL F&O where there >> has never been a locale identifier... I made a new try, please have a look. >> >> Section 1.2: eliminate comma from first sentence. done. >> >> Section 1.2: "However, such formats might apply the definitions made >> in this specification, see e.g. [LDML]." This sentence is unclear. >> Change to say: "One possible source of locale data and data formats is >> [LDML]"?? done. >> >> Section 1.3: "Web Service Internationalization" should read "Web >> services Internationalization" done. >> >> Section 1.3/1.4: Section 1.3 and Section 1.4 should be a single section. done. >> >> Section 2.2: following Martin's proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006Apr/0006.html , this is now a subsection 1.4. This section mixes languages and locales as if they were >> the same thing. I think this is dangerous. We spent a lot of time in >> WSTF building text to deal with this in a purposeful way. Language >> tags are for languages. Locales can be inferred from language tags >> (the locale mechanism used inside your programming environment may use >> very different identifiers, cf. LCIDs). Thus item (2) in the list is >> wrong. >> >> Comment: I think you should import text (with minor editing) from Web >> Services Usage Scenarios to describe languages and locales and only >> then launch into values. In particular, I commend you to Section 3.1 >> and Section 3.1.1 of >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-i18n-scenarios-20040730 I reused and adapted section 3.1.1 of ws-i18n-scenarios, please have a look. >> Section 2.2: The following is correctly identified as a Bad Thing, but >> I would suggest you remove it altogether done. because you suggest that it >> is sometimes okay to infer this. This is just bad practice or an >> application assumption ("default currency"). In fact, this is Section >> I-018 of WSUS >> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-i18n-scenarios-20040730/#S-018) >> "Note that sometimes information is heuristically inferred from >> language or locale identifiers. For example, software might infer that >> if the locale is "fr-FR" that the user's preferred currency is EUR. >> However, that is only a guess because that locale ID does not specify >> the preferred currency. The user may actually be living in the UK, and >> do most transactions in GBP" >> >> Section 2.2: Example 1: This is a bad example because time zone is >> always orthogonal to locale (and language). If you're going to say >> anything about time zones, you should probably require the use of >> Olson identifiers in specifications (a subject beyond the scope of >> this document??) I got rid of the example. >> >> Section 2.3: references are to RFC 3066bis? Should be to draft-matching. done & changed in response to Martin's comment, is now section 2.2. >> >> Section 3: Item 3: Specifications that define operations on language >> values really should accept both basic and extended ranges. does that mean that we break nearly all existing operations on language values? I'm looking for a conformance criterion which allows CSS and folks to say "in CSS 2.0, we do basic ranges, and that's fine". A new version of CSS or spec XXX should do both, but I don't want to break existing RECs. >> What's >> important to specify is the matching scheme itself. >> >> Item 5: I don't like this item at all. I got rid of it. If you want to use an IRI to >> point to some "information item", fine: that's your own choice and >> none of our business. But this requirement as written means nothing >> and will only serve to confuse people. I think you'd be better off >> sticking with saying something like "use the same format for locale >> IDs as language tags". If someone can propose a workable IRI solution, >> you can then incorporate that. The point (I think) is to avoid having >> nine ways of identifying a locale. >> >> Editorial: In the note, this phrase "are conform to these criteria" >> should say "conformant" done. >> >> General: I really think you should write about language identification >> and then about inferring locale from it. In particular, I would >> suggest that you consider adding something like these requirements: I'd like to discuss these proposals with the core group first (see "cc" of this mail). >> >> - Specifications MUST NOT use the xml:lang attribute to convey locale >> information. // specs must not promote poor behavior. Xml:lang >> identifies natural language usage in a document. o.k. >> >> - Specifications MUST define the default behavior for matching of >> language content (see draft-matching, Section 3.4.1) same concern as above: danger of breaking existing RECs. We will get *a lot* of last call comments with such a criterion .. >> >> - Specifications that use HTTP 1.1 SHOULD allow an application to >> infer a user's locale preferences from the HTTP Accept-Language >> header. // or something like this, eh? how does this criterion relate to the following? It sounds like "HTTP 1.1" will be an exception to the following criterion? >> >> - Specifications that define the exchange of locale information MUST >> define locale identifiers in terms of RFC 3066bis language tags and >> MAY define specific extensions or private-use codes to identify >> additional information. // this is the big one Looking forward for more feedback. Best regards, Felix. >> >> ---- >> As always, my best regards, >> >> Addison >> >> Addison Phillips >> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. >> >> Internationalization is an architecture. >> It is not a feature. >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 06:07:32 UTC