- From: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:09:32 -0400
- To: asmusf@ix.netcom.com
- Cc: www-international@w3.org
> >But perhaps such a systematic list already exists elsewhere. I'm not going to address this; it's out of my knowledge. My other comments are below (thanks for explaining the rationale of this message to me, I guess it makes sense) >>> >>>1) you have content that has not been classified >>>2) you have content for which classification has failed >>>3) you have content that is known to not fit any of the classifications >>>(would not this be 2?) >>>4) you have content to which the classification cannot apply >>>5) you have content that fits multiple classifications >>> >>>in the case of tagging natural language content, the label "zxx" is >>>clearly the correct one for case 4. When there is no linguistic content, >>>the classification cannot apply. >>> >>>"und" seems a fine label when you want to convey that tagging has not >>>happened (case 1 or 2 - the distinction between these is not necessarily >>>of sufficient interest to carry it forward). But so would the empty tag >>>if it had been allowed. >>und would be o.k. if there were some language but it has not been >>determined which or maybe even how many (I think Addison's comment, that >>und was not recommended by the rfc when there was no real language, was >>helpful for und) >I read this as implying that we are in agreement. I guess so. >>> >>>Case 3 could be handled with any form or label that says "no tag assigned >>>yet", but failing that, if available, a private tag might be useful. >>> >>>A single string like "OK" is an example that could fit category 5. >> Anyway, I would code "o.k." en normally but as any other language if the term had really seeped into that language, I might also encode as maybe slang, or maybe mul ??? I kind of think this will end up being ad-hoc If you share my maybe off-base theory that o.k. comes from Langue d'oc I guess you could encode that it is from that language too ; though o.k.'s by now pretty English. if you have another theory then you would not encode "o.k." as Langue d'oc; >>John Cowan did address the off-topic remarks on the word I'd chosen as an >>exmaple sufficiently, Here are some links on this word; there seems to be an accent grave over the o in oc; otherwise it might get pronounced something like an open u is that U ??? or u ?? http://www.answers.com/topic/occitan-language lenga d'òc http://occitanet.free.fr/fr/index.html Ò - "se prononce comme le o français de "pomme", "dort", etc. Jamais fermé comme dans le français "métro", "boulot", "dodo"." Is that the backwards C or whatever maybe?? or an open o?? (here's the IPA vowel chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Vowels ) (I do not speak this language; I read it in its medieval form; when I was in France I maybe saw a few modern words/heard a few in Oc, but really used French there and heard a dialect of French I think; my original source of the /ok/ pronunciation is a course in Old French where we studied the trobadors some and then a lecture, then this was an interest sort of a lot once) --C. E. Whitehead _________________________________________________________________ Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN Presents today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline&ocid=T002MSN03A07001
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2007 19:09:40 UTC