RE: Alternatives for the term 'primary language'

There are two completely different concepts here:

1  The language(s) of the document.

2  The language(s) of the expected/intended audience.

These two (sets of) languages can be disjoint.

The term we use for (1) must include the word 
"document" and must not include the word "audience".

The term we use for (2) must not include the word 
"document" and must include the word "audience".

I agree with Chris that the best term for (2) is 
"language of the intended audience".  It is the best 
term because it doesn't leave room for guessing the 
meaning.

Misha


-----Original Message-----
From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jony Rosenne
Sent: 26 June 2006 18:48
To: 'Richard Ishida'; www-international@w3.org
Subject: RE: Alternatives for the term 'primary language'


After reading the references, I support document language.

This is the plainest phrase. In the example, the document is in German,
although it may contain Chinese phrases. 

For those who think we require a more precise phrase, how about "primary
document audience default base language"? Did I miss anything important?

Jony

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-international-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 PM
> To: www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Alternatives for the term 'primary language'
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> 
> The new WCAG draft is using the term 'primary language' in a 
> different way than we have defined it in  "Authoring 
> Techniques for XHTML & HTML Internationalization: Specifying 
> the language of content 1.0" [1].  There are other, older, 
> uses of the term 'primary language' that also do not conform 
> to our usage in this document.
> 
> In addition, 'primary language' doesn't really convey the 
> meaning of the idea expressed at [1].  The meaning is 
> intended to convey the language of the intended audience of 
> the document, referring to the document as a whole, and 
> contrasted with 'text-processing language' in that more than 
> one language value makes sense in some circumstances.
> 
> Perhaps the time has come to think of an alternative term.
> 
> We would like your suggestions.
> 
> Brainstormed suggestions so far include:
> 	document language
> 	audience language
> 	web unit language
> 	language metadata
> 	language metadata declaration
> 	document language metadata
> 	readership language
> 	default langauge
> 	base language
> 	main language
> 
> 'Document language' seemed interesting at one point, but is 
> probably not specific enough - particularly when the term is 
> translated into other languages.
> 
> Current favourites are 
> 	readership language (sounds a bit clunky)
> 	audience language
> 
> Please read [1] and [2] and tell us if you have any better 
> suggestions.
> 
> Thanks,
> RI
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.101452727
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20040808.102523274
> 
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
> 
> 
> 




To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com

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 Monday, 26 June 2006 17:01:04 UTC