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

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp> wrote:

> I like "identified", although, I have to admit that my English knowledge
> doesn't give me only vague distinction between "know" and "identify."
>

> There's a sentence in the content language Terminology[1]:
>   Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to be
> unknown.
>
> Should this also be:
>   Note that it is possible for the content language of an element could
> not be identified.
>

fantasai's suggested change is sufficient;

i would suggest leaving the current definition alone in the content
language definition; e.g., what does "unknown" mean:

   - unknown to author; e.g., author is speaking in tongues [but can
   transcribe it!]
   - known to author, but no "identification" specified, e.g., author
   writes in Japanese, but doesn't add 'ja' locale, etc.
   - known to author, and no "identification" specified, but known
   (recognizable) to reader/decoder in absence of identification, e.g., author
   writes in Japanese, fails to specify language identity, but reader
   recognizes and "knows" language
   - known to author, and no "identification" specified, but unknown
   (recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, fails to
   specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese and has no clue
   of language
   - known to author, and "identification" specified, but unknown
   (recognizable) to reader/decoder, e.g., author writes in Japanese, does
   specify language identity, but reader can't read Japanese (even though the
   language is identified and thus the reader may have a hint in order to hire
   a translator)

trying to be more specific here may lead down a bit of a slipper slope