Return-Path: Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.1.11-Mandrake-RPM-2.1.11-1mdk) with LMTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:20:37 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE6161BAE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:20:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22394-01 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:20:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F3961C00 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:20:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CokB2-0001of-E2; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:12:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Cok0x-0005Ff-VE for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:02:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA18604 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CokEy-0007pk-6V for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:16:59 -0500 Received: from lns-p19-8-idf-82-65-68-107.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.68.107] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1Cok0s-0005nK-I9; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:02:23 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050112151151.0315cd90@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:01:33 +0100 To: Misha Wolf , ietf@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF7802D7ED04@LONSMSXM02.emea.i me.reuters.com> References: <1987416CA83AC7499AC772F92E2DBF7802D7ED04@LONSMSXM02.emea.ime.reuters.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FE02643; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-41E53BF30CB1=======" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Scan-Signature: 10d3e4e3c32e363f129e380e644649be Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org Subject: RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no --=======AVGMAIL-41E53BF30CB1======= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_23708691==.ALT"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FE02643 --=====================_23708691==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FE02643 At 14:37 12/01/2005, Misha Wolf wrote: >A first step could be to compare the two standards bodies' >requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are >compatible. Further steps could follow, depending on the outcome. >Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web >relies on it. Currently, the same language tagging standard is used >by HTTP, HTML's "meta" element, HTML's "lang" attribute and XML's >"xml:lang" attribute. Sorry to come back on the particulars of the langtags debate. I do this only to illustrate the real source of the problem (described in RFC 2418 part 2.3. Misha documents very well the source of the problem: the HTML lang attribute is acceptable for the Web (IMHO not for Semantic Web) and the xml:lang attribute is not scalable. One first reason (lack of scripting) has been identified. But this is not the only one. Another problem is obviously the declaration "MUST" which cannot scale and creates a problem. If I am correct the W3C documentation concerning xmls:lang is http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/ paragraph 2.12 language definition. This document says: "A special attribute named xml:lang MAY be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document. In valid documents, this attribute, like any other, MUST be declared if it is used. The values of the attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of Languages, or its successor; in addition, the empty string MAY be specified." This definition does not permit end to end interinteligibility (hence interoperability for web services, content filtering, etc.) except in closed customer groups sharing the same language dictionary, grammar, semantic, etc. for an ISO 639 language. If the intent is a universal unique multilanguage, by one single provider, this works. Otherwise it does not. This is why in addition to adding the scripting one needs at list a type of usage/function and an authoritative source information. jfc jfc --=====================_23708691==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-2FE02643 At 14:37 12/01/2005, Misha Wolf wrote:
A first step could be to compare the two standards bodies'
requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are
compatible.  Further steps could follow, depending on the outcome.
Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web
relies on it.  Currently, the same language tagging standard is used
by HTTP, HTML's "meta" element, HTML's "lang" attribute and XML's
"xml:lang" attribute.

Sorry to come back on the particulars of the langtags debate. I do this only to illustrate the real source of the problem (described in RFC 2418 part 2.3.

Misha documents very well the source of the problem: the HTML lang attribute is acceptable for the Web (IMHO not for Semantic Web) and the xml:lang attribute is not scalable. One first reason (lack of scripting) has been identified. But this is not the only one. Another problem is obviously the declaration "MUST" which cannot scale and creates a problem.

If I am correct the W3C documentation concerning xmls:lang is http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/ paragraph 2.12 language definition. This document says: "A special attribute named xml:lang MAY be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document. In valid documents, this attribute, like any other, MUST be declared if it is used. The values of the attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of Languages, or its successor; in addition, the empty string MAY be specified."

This definition does not permit end to end interinteligibility (hence interoperability for web services, content filtering, etc.) except in closed customer groups sharing the same language dictionary, grammar, semantic, etc. for an ISO 639 language. If the intent is a universal unique multilanguage, by one single provider, this works. Otherwise it does not. This is why in addition to adding the scripting one needs at list a type of usage/function and an authoritative source information.

jfc

jfc
--=====================_23708691==.ALT-- --=======AVGMAIL-41E53BF30CB1======= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf --=======AVGMAIL-41E53BF30CB1=======--