- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:29:23 +0900 (JST)
- To: "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> Hi Felix, > > Thanks for all of these changes! thanks for all these comments :) > >> I'm puzzled about some comments, since my impression was that you and >> Mark >> had agreement on the changes in the target sections (I did not much more >> than implementing your discussion). But I'm o.k. with that. > > Sometimes there are differences when you see the text in context as > compared > to in an email thread. np. > >> done, though I wonder if "For example, by an implementation could map a >> language tag from an existing protocol, such as HTTP's Accept-Language >> header, to its locale model." is a correct English sentence. Well, you >> know better than me ... > > The word "by" is a typo and should be removed. done. > >> >> I have taken the example out again, but note that Mark said at >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2006May/0004.html >> : >> "I'm ok with that [taking the text out]. Then this can be recast as an >> example (an important one)." > > Yes, I recall his comment. However, the example is inappropriate in this > context because it suggests (heck, it states directly) that > implementations > should map underscores and hyphens. This document, IMO, should make > hyphens > normative. This makes the example one showing how a "proprietary" locale > model maps to a "W3C locale identifier" (and it is an excellent and valid > example of that... but context matters). o.k. > >> In fact, I would >> > tighten up your terminology as we've done with 3066bis and be strict >> about >> > saying "language tags" (and not "parameters", "values", "identifiers", >> and >> > so forth). >> >> Done for "parameters", "values", "identifiers". The change is sometimes >> difficult, look at this sentence: >> "Existing standards which make use of language identification includes >> the >> xml:lang attribute in [XML 1.0], ..." >> saying "tags" instead of "identification" doesn't make sense here. >> Also, in your text proposal "Historically, natural language identifiers" >> it seems to me "identifiers" is more appropriate than "tags". > > Agreed. "Language identification" is a process, please note, not a noun > (language tags are used in language identification :-) ). The second > instance you cite is also appropriate. I just found that the terminology > was > inconsistently applied. > > Otherwise: looks good. I look forward to future revisions. thanks. I look forward for new comments. Felix > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] >> Sent: 2006?516 3:23 >> >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2006 04:29:25 UTC