I hesitate to mix into this conversation, because I have only followed it intermittantly, and the discussion seems overly complicated. But I have a couple of comments. *Audience Languages.* The distinction between the "audience" languages and the "document" languages is seems tenuous and artificial. I'm guessing that the best characterization of "audience languages" is that someone who doesn't speak one of "audience" languages would not find the document as a whole to be understandable. For example, I could have a document that is mostly English with a some Hebrew phrases mentioned. While both English and Hebrew occur in the document, it would not be useful for a non-English speaker, while it could be useful for an English speaker who didn't know Hebrew. *Language vs Languages. *It is also odd to talk about "the" language of a document as if there can be only one. Even speaking of "the predominant language" is a misnomer: look at http://unicode.org/iso15924/standard/index.html, for example. While we can't make a syntactic change for compatibility reasons, there should at least be an explanation of that it is just a syntactic pidgeonhole that people have to deal with. MarkReceived on Friday, 14 May 2010 18:14:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:58 UTC