Doug Ewell 2008-05-10 02.58: > Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote: > > >> I think this would be bad. Lists of language (asserting the language > >> of a span of content) make processing, parsing, validation, and other > >> operations harder. They make it harder for users to tag content, > >> since users have to think of potentially more than one tag. > > > > That it may be illegal with more thane one tag does not mean that > > tools and users must not know about more than one tag in order to > > understand what that single tag means. > > > > You must for intance know that 'zh' covers 'yum' and vice versa. > > This is a non sequitur. "Knowing about" more than one tag in the sense > of matching macrolanguages has nothing to do with a protocol accepting a > list of tags where it has previously allowed only one. > I did not speak about "matching macrolanguages". I spoke about the opposite - telling which emcompassed language that is meant. And it would be a protocol issue. It is not for us to solve. > > You must try to figure out what "mul" covers. > > Wrong. Nobody is ever required to figure out what the infinitely vague > "mul" covers. > No one are required to find out what 'zh' means either, then. And not 'no' and not 'ar'. > >> This idea that an item is in "multiple languages" is mostly wrong. > > > > If it is only "mostly wrong", then it isn't wrong. > > This is interesting logic. Either there is a usecase or there isn't. > But I had the same concern as Addison: what > practical use is it to state that content is in multiple languages, > without specifying which parts of the content are in which languages? > Perhaps I don't want to tell you in which language you should read this number: <span lang="mul">123</span>. Perhaps I want to tag something as multilingual. Usually, in HTML/XML, what the element start tag says is true about the entire element. So if you want to spesificly tag the element as multilingual, you can do that with 'mul'. > > For instance "mul,en,fr" is a list which says the same thing, becuse > > "en" is encompassed in "mul, as is "fr". Likewise "zh,yum,cmn" is a > > list of the same thing because 'yum' and cmn' ar contained in 'zh'. > > "no,nn" is a list of the same thing." > > That's exactly why "mul" is useless -- by definition, it covers > everything. It would be like addressing a letter with "Milky Way > Galaxy" at the bottom. > It does not cover everyting. It covers "multiple languages". > I am categorically opposed to adding anything to RFC 4646bis (or the > postulated RFC 4647bis) that expands or further sanctions the use of > "mul" in any way. [...] What we have discussed here - lately at least - is how a protocol - XML - could allow several tags. Not how 'mul' could be extended. -- leif halvard silli _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.