[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward



I agree that the Gothic example might not be obvious, this would be a good place to put a comment into the registry.

It might be useful to actually distinguish between processing language and content language (metadata). For example, one might use "got-Latn" and "got-Goth" on <p> elements in an XHMTL document so that appropriate fonts can by applied to each in a stylesheet and still use "got" (meaning "got-Latn") in the <meta> element or in external references to the document. See: http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech-lang/#ri20030510.102829377, which helped form my thinking about this.

I don't think that script associations need to pass an obviousness test. But the temptation to register every script a language has ever been written in should be guarded against since it will cause a lot of texts to pick up "SHOULD" when they really should not. Perhaps having separate fields (default and associated/expected) would help this, allowing promiscuous registration of associated scripts.

In that case, it is:

0*1[default_script] = SHOULD NOT
2*[default_script] = SHOULD always
[associated_script] = informational list of additional scripts???

Comments?

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: jeudi 14 avril 2005 19:32
> To: ltru at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips at quest.com>
> > To: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>; <ltru at ietf.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:48 PM
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposed Text for Moving Forward
> ...
> > Perhaps the rules should be:
> >
> > 1. If the primary language has no associated script,
> > you SHOULD NOT use a script subtag
> > unless it adds distinguishing information for that context.
> >
> > 2. If the primary language has a single associated script
> >  and the content uses that script,
> > you SHOULD NOT use the script subtag (unless etc.).
> >
> > 3. If the primary language has two or more associated scripts
> > and the content uses one of them,
> > you SHOULD use the script subtag (unless it is harmful to do so).
> >
> > 4. If the primary language has any number of associated scripts,
> > but the content uses a different script,
> > you SHOULD use the script subtag (unless it is harmful to do so).
> 
> To get the desired results for Gothic, (no subtag for Gothic transcribed
> into latin alphabet, subtag required if using the historical Gothic
> alphabet)
> I think this would mean that the entry for Gothic could not identify
> Gothic
> as an associated script, and that the associated script (if any) would be
> latin.  I guess this works, but I'd classify it as "obvious only if
> previously
> understood."
> 
> Randy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru



Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.