- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:33:20 +0200
- To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
On Monday, June 26, 2006, 12:00:42 PM, Richard wrote: RI> The new WCAG draft is using the term 'primary language' in a RI> different way than we have defined it in "Authoring Techniques for RI> XHTML & HTML Internationalization: Specifying the language of RI> content 1.0" [1]. There are other, older, uses of the term 'primary RI> language' that also do not conform to our usage in this document. RI> In addition, 'primary language' doesn't really convey the meaning RI> of the idea expressed at [1]. The meaning is intended to convey the RI> language of the intended audience of the document, referring to the RI> document as a whole, and contrasted with 'text-processing language' RI> in that more than one language value makes sense in some circumstances. Although slightly long, I thought that "language of the intended audience" was clearer and more immediately comprehensible than the shorter phrases described below. RI> Brainstormed suggestions so far include: RI> document language RI> audience language RI> web unit language RI> language metadata RI> language metadata declaration RI> document language metadata RI> readership language RI> default langauge RI> base language RI> main language I recently came across a document that should make a good example. Its a 'diplomatic edition' (ie full academic rigour, alternative readings,loads of footnotes, etc of a mediaeval Welsh text). The footnotes, discussion and other 'critical apparatus' are in English. The language of the intended audience is thus also English, despite 75% of the text being mediaeval Welsh. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 12:33:28 UTC