Re: [css3-text] Better wording than "known to be language X" (was line-break questions/comments

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> >> I'll ask i18n WG for any better wording suggestion. If you have
> >> good suggestion, that's appreciated too. If nobody can come up
> >> with better suggestion, I think we should conclude that the
> >> current wording is the best one. Does this sound reasonable?
>
> > The current language is unacceptable and misleading without
> > further clarification, as it implies textual/linguistic analysis.
> > If the following informative text were added in a new Section 1.4
> > "Conventions", then I would be satisfied:
> >
> > <quote>
> > A phrase of the form "known to be X" where X is a language
> > name, e.g., "known to be Japanese", is intended to be determined
> > using markup alone, and does not imply a requirement to perform
> > linguistic analysis (i.e., language recognition) of associated text
> > content."
> > </quote>
>
> The wording you suggested still overrides what content document spec
> defines, so I guess it is inappropriate for us to write this.


It is not intended to redefine content language. To make this clear, a
slight improvement would be:

> <quote>
> A phrase of the form "known to be X" where X is a language
> name, e.g., "known to be Japanese", is intended to be determined
> using the <a href="#content-language">content language</a> alone, and
does not imply a requirement to perform
> linguistic analysis (i.e., language recognition) of associated text
> content."
> </quote>


> HTTP meta header, Tools/Options, or system language are not "markup
> alone." Also, we should not prohibit content document format to use
> linguistic analysis; it's up to content document format to define this. CSS
> should be neutral to content document and should not force other specs to
> do something, if I understand correctly.
>
> It looks like you want an explicit statement in the case content document
> is HTML, so probably what you want is something like this:
>

No.


>
> <quote>
> For example, if the content language is HTML, the rule to determine the
> content language is defined in [[!HTML5]].
> </quote>
>
> But then I found this is almost complete copy of the text in the
> Terminology section[1], and looks redundant to me.
>
> <quote>
> Refer to the <i>content language</i> section for how UA should determine
> the content language.
> </quote>
>
> Does this work for you?
>

No. It does not address the problem that the phrase "known to be X" is
completely undefined and not related (in the text) to content language.


>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#content-language
>
> Regards,
> Koji
>
>