Brief   Full   Jump  

Small
Medium
Large

Teal
High contrast
Bluish
Black

Sans-serif
Serif
Monospaced
Close
d
?
Styles

i18n-ISSUE-410

4 messages.

LDP WG response to i18n-ISSUE-410: Language tags should reference BCP 47
Eric Prud'hommeaux   Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:34:51 -0400

public-ldp-comments > March 2015 > 0018.html

Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 16:34:58 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: atkin@us.ibm.com
Copied to: public-ldp-comments@w3.org, www-international@w3.org.

* Steven Atkin <atkin@us.ibm.com> [2015-03-05 10:00-0700] > > In section 3.0 the definition of a language tag should refer to BCP 47 > rather than including the definition from Turtle. You might want to > consider referencing obs langtag in bcp47 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/ldpatch/ldpatch.html#conformance now says [[ Parsers should treat Literals as being composed of a lexical form and an optional language tag [BCP47] (as used by Turtle [Turtle]) or datatype IRI. ]] You'll note that it just follows the convention of RDF specs in referring to a "languag tag", and not either the "Language-Tag" or "obs-language-tag" productions. I read the difference as guidance to folks inventing e.g. language tags for regional dialects, etc. I'm not sure how much RDF falls into that camp, rather than simply representing existing language tags. My temptation is to stick with the convention so that one spec doesn't apparently contradict another. Steven, do the edits above (and the preference for intra-spec consistency over specificity) address i18n-ISSUE-410? -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
RE: LDP WG response to i18n-ISSUE-410: Language tags should reference BCP 47
"Phillips, Addison"   Fri, 27 Mar 2015 17:25:01 +0000

public-ldp-comments > March 2015 > 0019.html

Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 17:25:40 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: eric@w3.org, atkin@us.ibm.com
Copied to: public-ldp-comments@w3.org, public-ldp-comments@w3.org, www-international@w3.org, www-international@w3.org.

> From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org] > > You'll note that it just follows the convention of RDF specs in referring to a > "languag tag", and not either the "Language-Tag" or "obs-language-tag" > productions. I read the difference as guidance to folks inventing e.g. > language tags for regional dialects, etc. I'm not sure how much RDF falls into > that camp, rather than simply representing existing language tags. My > temptation is to stick with the convention so that one spec doesn't > apparently contradict another. BCP 47 provides for private use (as well as guidance for registering subtags necessary for language variations not represented by the standard language tag structure). Generally there is no benefit to inventing or using a completely separate language tagging scheme. The guidance in the WG comment regarding to use of obs-language-tag has to do with the fact that some of the RDF standards antedate the adoption of the current BCP47 set of RFCs and "obs-language-tag" represents the more-relaxed grammar used previously. I guess what you're saying is that, although the "optional language tag" should be a language tag, any string could appear there and it would not be a processing/parsing error if something that didn't follow BCP47 appeared there. Is that correct? Addison Addison Phillips Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) Chair (W3C I18N WG) Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture.
RE: LDP WG response to i18n-ISSUE-410: Language tags should reference BCP 47
Eric Prud'hommeaux   Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:37:03 -0400

public-ldp-comments > March 2015 > 0020.html

Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 13:37:14 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: addison@lab126.com
Copied to: public-ldp-comments@w3.org, atkin@us.ibm.com, www-international@w3.org, www-international@w3.org.

On Mar 27, 2015 6:25 PM, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com> wrote: > > > From: Eric Prud'hommeaux [mailto:eric@w3.org] > > > > You'll note that it just follows the convention of RDF specs in referring to a > > "languag tag", and not either the "Language-Tag" or "obs-language-tag" > > productions. I read the difference as guidance to folks inventing e.g. > > language tags for regional dialects, etc. I'm not sure how much RDF falls into > > that camp, rather than simply representing existing language tags. My > > temptation is to stick with the convention so that one spec doesn't > > apparently contradict another. > > > BCP 47 provides for private use (as well as guidance for registering subtags necessary for language variations not represented by the standard language tag structure). Generally there is no benefit to inventing or using a completely separate language tagging scheme. > > The guidance in the WG comment regarding to use of obs-language-tag has to do with the fact that some of the RDF standards antedate the adoption of the current BCP47 set of RFCs and "obs-language-tag" represents the more-relaxed grammar used previously. > > I guess what you're saying is that, although the "optional language tag" should be a language tag, any string could appear there and it would not be a processing/parsing error if something that didn't follow BCP47 appeared there. Is that correct? Right. Turtle Patch treats it as a string. Other stuff in the RDF stack would break if one didn't at least follow obs-language-tag (SPARQL a '-'-sensitive langmatches function and probably some UIs crack the'-'s) but nothing would treat a rigorous LanguageTag differently from an obs-language-tag. > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) > Chair (W3C I18N WG) > > Internationalization is not a feature. > It is an architecture. > >
RE: LDP WG response to i18n-ISSUE-410: Language tags should reference BCP 47
"Phillips, Addison"   Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:59:16 +0000

public-ldp-comments > March 2015 > 0022.html

Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 15:59:43 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: eric@w3.org
Copied to: public-ldp-comments@w3.org, public-ldp-comments@w3.org, atkin@us.ibm.com, www-international@w3.org, www-international@w3.org.

> > > > I guess what you're saying is that, although the "optional language tag" > should be a language tag, any string could appear there and it would not be a > processing/parsing error if something that didn't follow BCP47 appeared > there. Is that correct? > > Right. Turtle Patch treats it as a string. Other stuff in the RDF stack would > break if one didn't at least follow obs-language-tag (SPARQL a '-'-sensitive > langmatches function and probably some UIs crack the'-'s) but nothing would > treat a rigorous LanguageTag differently from an obs-language-tag. > Okay, that matches what I recall of reviewing those other specifications. I do tend to favor being consistent, even when being non-normative, in talking about what a field can contain. It is good to point out that, although a value is "just a string" in one place, it might cause failures elsewhere later if it isn't actually well-formed (at least to obs-language-tag). A family of specifications should all use the same requirements. In any case, I don't object to using the wording now in place and don't think it needs to be belabored. I also note that the link to RDF 1.1 ends up at a definition that includes a "well-formed" requirement (that requirement is stronger than obs-language-tag). Addison