RE: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)

Hi, Leif, all:

 

MORE PROOFREADING TWEAKS (sorry Leif I did not catch everything earlier):


Rationale, item 1, 1rst sentence/phrase
"1.That it prevents authors from legally using multiple values to replicate the language fallback effect of doing the same thing in a HTTP header. "

=> "1.That it prevents authors from legally using multiple values in the http-equiv to replicate the language fallback effect that is achieved through the use of multiple values in the HTTP header. "


{ COMMENTS:  Awkward }


* * *
Rationale, item 1, 2nd sentence/phrase

"That no language gets set, as HTML5 requires from multiple tags whether they occur in HTTP or in http-equiv, is still an effect."

=> "That no language gets set, as HTML5 requires from multiple tags, whether they occur in HTTP or in http-equiv, is still an effect."

{ COMMENTS:  needs a comma to make relationships between clauses clear.  I'm also not sure you need to say 'is still an effect.' "

* * *
Conformance checking and warnings . . . item 1, last sentence

"Justification: Since it is a fallback feature, and with other semantics, there is no guarantee that the author has used it for the language effect. "

=> ? "Justification: It is a fallback feature, and there is no guarantee that the author has used it for the language effect."
{ COMMENT:  ? what does "Since" mean here? also what does "and with other semantics" mean here? }

* * *

Conformance checkings and warnings . . . item 2, last sentence

"2.To hold the syntax rules of HTTP (which permits multiple language tags) as the conforming ones (rather than those of lang, which forbids multiple languages), will have the effect of underlining that lang and Content-Language have different purposes. For instance, since the fallback algorithm doesn’t kick in whenever multiple languages are used in the pragma or on the server, there would not be any warning in these cases. "

=> "2.Preserving the syntax rules of HTTP (which permits multiple language tags) as the conforming ones (rather than those of lang, which forbids multiple languages), will have the effect of underlining that lang and Content-Language have different purposes. For instance, since the fallback algorithm doesn’t kick in whenever multiple languages are used in the pragma or on the server, there would not be any warning in these cases. "

{ COMMENT:  "To hold the syntax rules of HTTP" does not seem to be the right wording.  I think you mean "preserve."  Also we do not use the infinitive with "to" to introduce an effect something will have; instead we use the gerund; although yes the gerund with -ing and the infinitive with "to" are interchangeable after some expressions, such as "I like;" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund }

* * *
Spec changes to section 4.2.5.3 Pragma directives

"This pragma contains a Content-Language list, whose semantics and syntax is defined in the HTTP spec. [HTTP] An HTML5 parser processes this list into a known or unknown pragma-set locale language. Until the pragma is successfully processed, there can not be a pragma-set locale language. The Content-Language list may also be defined in a HTTP header, and will then result in a known or unknown HTTP header-set locale language. When a document is lacking a language declaration in the form of the lang or xml:lang attribute on the root element, the document’s locale language is consulted by the user agent and used as fallback value for the primary document language. Validators are required to emit a warning whenever the locale language is used as fallback for the primary document language, see section 3.2.3.3 The lang and xml:lang attributes and the informative comment below."

=>

"This pragma contains a Content-Language list, whose semantics and syntax is defined in the HTTP spec. [HTTP] An HTML5 parser processes this list into a known or unknown pragma-set locale language. Until the pragma is successfully processed, there cannot be a pragma-set locale language. The Content-Language list may also be defined in a HTTP header, and will then result in a known or unknown HTTP header-set locale language. Whenever a document is lacking a primary language declaration in the form of the lang or xml:lang attribute on the root element,* the document’s locale language is consulted by the user agent and used as fallback value for the primary document language. Validators are required to emit a warning whenever the locale language is used as fallback for the primary document language, see section 3.2.3.3 The lang and xml:lang attributes and the informative comment below."

---
 (*Note:  this is not the same as lang or xml:lang attributes specified as the null string; if the lang or xml:lang attribute is specified as null, then the pragma-set locale language should be left unspecfied rather than filled by the language information in the http-equiv or HTTP header.)


{ COMMENTS sentence three:  "cannot" is one word, not two; sentence five:  I think "primary language declaration" is clearer here than "language declaration;" the latter might be initially, at least at first read, confused with the locale language declaration here }


* * *

COMMENTS ON CONTENT
Informative Info

 

"The following info about the HTTP semantics and Content-Language usage, is informative: 


"That there is no Content-Language list (as a http-equiv pragma or a HTTP header) means that the document targets all users regardless of their language preference and regardless of their ability to actually read the document language. This is often the simplest and best option. 
"That there is a Content-Language list (as a http-equiv pragma or a HTTP header) means that the target audience is narrowed down to the users that are expected to prefer the language(s) on the list. Note: The Content-Language list should be defined on the HTTP server side, to be fully effective. 
The HTML parser processing is only a side effect of the HTTP semantics – authors should not define the Content-Language list according to its parser effect, but according to it semantics."
 
Examples of semantically meaningful use of the Content-Language list: 
1.An English document localized – but not translated – for presentation to all European Union citizens: the Content-Language could list one language tag per language used in the European Union. 
2.An English document localized – but not translated – for German users: the Content-Language list could list a single language tag – 'de'. 
3.An English document is localized for British English users: the Content-Language lists a single language tag – 'en'. 
4.A document in Queen's English is targeted at US citizens – with the Content-Language set to 'en-US'. 
Usage warnings: Only the example number 3 would parse into a locale language value that actually was useful as a primary document language. The first example would parse into a harmless 'unknown' locale language value. While the second and fourth example would end up as to a large degree vs to a noticeable degree unusable as the primary document language. Hence the validator warnings described under section 3.2.3.3."


{ COMMENTS:  in my opinion, a common use scenario would be an English lesson targeting speakers of other languages but in English; likewise, you might have a collection of Russian readings in Russian targeting either Europeans (multiple languages but 'mul' is not recommended) or speakers of U.S. English.  I fear thus that the current html5 spec -- without Leif's revisions -- mark a backlash against using the http-equiv information to facilitate serving language students the correct documents ; some will argue that this information could be provided in other meta tags; however I know that I have in the past specifically designed ESL lessons targeting the English grammatical errors and habits common to Arabic speakers; these include "  "As for Maria, she wants to study engineering, As for . . . ;" "There is one hobby which it looks strange for me; that is for Li; his hobby is . . . ;" "The book which he wrote it;" in these sentences features common to Arabic grammar and rhetoric -- the use of amaa-fa to topicalize; 'la' ('for' is the English translation of 'la') to indicate something like ownership; and the repetition of the relative pronoun that introduces a clause as a pronoun --  have been brought verbatim into English and may or may not be the best way to phrase something in English; thus in these lessons the speakers of a particular language are targeted and the particular features of that language and/or that are related to features in that language are dealt with in the content, and a language tag seems the best way to specify this. } 

 

Best,

 

--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar@hotmail.com 


 
> Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 03:48:42 +0200
> From: xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no
> To: cewcathar@hotmail.com
> CC: fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net; public-html@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; www-international@w3.org; ian@hixie.ch
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-88 - Change proposal (new update)
> 
> CE Whitehead, Tue, 11 May 2010 19:56:51 -0400:
> 
> > "continues to be legal"
> > => 
> > "continue to be legal"
> 
> Corrected. 
> 
> > { COMMENT: much, much improved! Thanks Leif and Fantasai! (: is my 
> > smiley face; I have not seen it in use much ? }
> 
> Thanks. But it is updated it again. Less wordy, I hope.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ContentLanguages
> 
> Primary changes are:
> 
> (1) replaced 'pragmae-set default language'
> (and 'single pragma-set audience language')
> with 'pragma-set locale language'
> 
> (Alt: 'document locale language' could also be possible')
> 
> Why 'locale language'? 
> * 'Locale' is a known term. 
> * 'audience language' is not well defined, I think, 
> but in practice fairly synonymous with 'locale language'. 
> * That multiple locale languages can result in a 'unknown locale
> language' when they are more than one, also makes some sense.
> * It doesn't make sense that multiple audience languages ends up
> as 'unknown audience languages'. 
> * It is well known that e.g. an application might be intended for 
> a certain locale, but still be presented to the users of that 
> locale in a language that is not considered typical for that 
> locale. 
> * 'Locale' also represents things that are independent of the 
> languag. E.g. currency, time zone, laws etc. Which again
> might be the reason for adapting an English doc for. e.g. a
> German locale.
> * For 'those in the know', it is immediately clear that the 
> 'locale language' of a document, might not correspond to the 
> document language of that document. 
> * 'locale language(s)' is also a term that has meaning when it 
> comes to content negotiation, which is a situation where
> there often is a correspondence between localization and 
> language preference
> 
> It is intentional that 'locale language' crashes a bit with 'document 
> language'. Authors *should* feel that it is not quite right to see use 
> the locale language as document language. The current term, 'pragma-set 
> default language' has a positive value that is unwanted.
> 
> (2) Shorter explanation of what the pragma is
> (3) A longer informational note about how to use Content-Language and 
> its pitfalls.
> (4) Definition of Content-Language as a list w/one or more items.
> -- 
> leif halvard silli
>