Language X within scope of language Y

[IETF Languages list copied]

I think that we must not try to redefine the meaning of:

   <foo xml:lang="Y"> 
      <bar xml:lang="X">

I agree that "en-IT" expresses "English as written/spoken in Italy", 
but that wasn't, I think, the problem that Reto was writing about in:

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Stephen Deach
Sent: 19 January 2005 16:39
To: Jeremy Carroll; Reto Bachmann-Gmuer
Cc: Martin Duerst;;
Subject: Re: XMLLiterals and language

Isn't encoding dialect the purpose of the variant component of a locale 

   What's wrong with "en-IT" for English as spoken in Italy ?

At 2005.01.19-16:29(+0000), Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>I am not at all convinced that this issue is irrelevant outside the
>semantic web domain. e.g. a text-to-speech system should, pronounce
>english words quite differently when in an italian mode, since italian
>speakers typically use italian pronounciation rules for english words
>being used in italian sentences. As an English mother-tongue speaker,
>with reasonable italian the most difficult sentences I find to
>understand are such mixed sentences.
><span xml:lang="it">
>Abbiamo fatto questo lavoro per il progetto
><span xml:lang="en">"Question How"</span>
>the words "question how" are pronounced quite differently from in
>English (even when the mother tongue italian speaker is a fluent
>speaker). (bitter experience here!)
>Reto Bachmann-Gmuer wrote:
> >
> > Martin Duerst wrote:
> >
> >> It seems to me that what Reto is looking for is a way to define
> >> a "primary language" for a small piece of data that itself is in
> >> a different language. Because such divergent cases are very rare,
> >> it seems they have been overlooked up to now.
> >>
> >>
> > I don't think this cases are that rare, looking at German computer
> > many titles consist only of English words, however they are the
> > titles (the first is relevant for pronunciation, the latter for
> > processing).
> >
> >> To me, the right thing to do seems to be to define the "primary"
> >> or "intended" language separately (e.g. with a separate property),
> >> but to define that property so that it defaults to the text
> >> processing language.
> >>
> > Having a primary language for Literals would be fine, however I
> > the text processing language (specified in the xml) should default
> > the primary language (which imho should be defined by means of rdf)
> > rather than the other way round. This seems more coherent with
> > plain-literals and particularly it does not require RDF-Processors
> > understand and parse XML in order to do things like filtering by
> >
> >> I'm glad to report that I just found the 'payload' module in
> >> RSS 1.1 ( that uses XML
> >> Literals rather than encoding. Great!
> >
> >
> > That's cool, and it would be cooler with the possibility to specify
> > language for the whole payload (even when some of the rare cases
> >
> > reto
> >
> >

---Steve Deach 

        Visit our Internet site at

Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more
information and to register, visit

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:54:30 UTC