- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:43:04 +0200
- To: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Style <www-style@w3.org>, "public-i18n-cjk@w3.org" <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, ML public-i18n-core (public-i18n-core@w3.org) <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Hi! If the language is unknown, then the language is unidentifiable. How about this combination of 'unidentifiable' and 'unknown': ]] Note that it is possible for the content language of an element to be unidentifiable. Either because the language is implicitly unknown due to lack of a language declaration mechanism that applies to the document language of the current document, or because the language is explicitly declared to be unknown.[[ This is partly inspired by HTML5, which discerns between "known" and "explicitly unknown".[1] [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/global-attributes.html#the-lang-and-xml:lang-attributes Leif H Silli Koji Ishii, Wed, 29 Aug 2012 03:51:35 -0400: > 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. > ? > > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#content-language > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Singer [mailto:singer@apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:18 AM > To: Koji Ishii > Cc: Glenn Adams; W3C Style; public-i18n-cjk@w3.org; ML > public-i18n-core (public-i18n-core@w3.org) > Subject: Re: [css3-text] Better wording than "known to be language X" > (was line-break questions/comments > > One problem is the verb 'known' which implies some knowledge on the > part of some reader, i.e. the verb identifies an agent outside the > scope of the specification. Perhaps it would be better to use a verb > that talks about what the reader is told, rather than what they > deduce or conclude? > > "identified as language [x]" > "identified by the rules of the enclosing context as being in > language [x]" (a bit wordy) "labeled as language [x]" (though some > identification is not via 'labelling') > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 13:43:42 UTC