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; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:49 +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 BC2EE61C11 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:49 +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 31332-09 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.16]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B104561BB5 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 00:19:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Corlr-0004DO-Rm for public-ietf-w3c-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:23 +0000 Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Corlr-0004Co-4z for public-ietf-w3c@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:23 +0000 Received: from homer.w3.org ([128.30.52.30]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Corlh-0005vI-Kp for public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:13 +0000 Received: by homer.w3.org (Postfix, from userid 12817) id B5D2D4EFB8; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:19:22 -0500 (EST) Resent-From: eric@w3.org Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:19:22 -0500 Resent-To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org Received: from bart.w3.org (bart.w3.org [128.30.52.40]) by homer.w3.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4814C4EF9F for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:02:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from frink.w3.org ([128.30.52.16]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cok0x-0006FB-63 for eric@w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:27 +0000 Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cok0w-0003Xj-Ut for eric@w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:26 +0000 X-From_: jefsey@jefsey.com Wed Jan 12 15:02:26 2005 Received: from bart.w3.org ([128.30.52.40]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cok0w-0003XE-KZ for public-ietf-w3c@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:26 +0000 Received: from montage.altserver.com ([63.247.74.122]) by bart.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Cok0w-0006Ev-FD for public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:26 +0000 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 Old-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:01:33 +0100 To: Misha Wolf , ietf@ietf.org From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" Cc: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org 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 - w3.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Received-SPF: none (bart.w3.org: domain of jefsey@jefsey.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) Old-X-Envelope-To: public-ietf-w3c Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:02:26 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (bart.w3.org: domain of listmaster@w3.org designates 128.30.52.16 as permitted sender) Received-SPF: pass (lisa.w3.org: domain of eric@w3.org designates 128.30.52.30 as permitted sender) X-Original-To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org Subject: RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. X-Archived-At: http://www.w3.org/mid/6.1.2.0.2.20050112151151.0315cd90@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/80 X-Loop: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org Sender: public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org Resent-Sender: public-ietf-w3c-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Resent-Message-Id: Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:19:23 +0000 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=======--