(no subject)
Sean M. Burke
sburke@cpan.org
Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:08:33 -0700
At 11:22 2002-12-06 +0000, Jon Hanna wrote:
>The idea of a separate header for orthography has a lot going for it.[...]
On the other hand:
* All other things being equal (which they never are), if we did introduce
orthography as yet another header, we could wait until the Sun goes red
giant before any of the browsers/clients and servers actually implement
content negotiation along this extra dimension, since people would be few
and far between who would see any utility to it. "What's that
for?" "Well, you see, in Yiddish, Mongolian, and Serbo-Croatian, there's
several scripts..." "Right, sure, I'll get RIGHT on that, for our big
Judeo-Mongolian market. OK, leave now."
* People's orthographic/script preferences are almost always attached to
particular languages (at least for languages they actually understand,
which is 99% of what we should be interested in here). So suppose I like
Mongolian to appear in Cyrillic, instead of in that pretty but difficult
vertical Old Script. My choice for Cyrillic there shouldn't be taken to
mean I like Cyrillic GENERALLY -- because I still prefer to read Mari in
Latin script; but going the other way, I still like my Serbian to be in
Cyrillic. Why? Because that's the way I learned these languages.
Similarly, the fact that I want my Austrian German in 1996 spelling reform
style shouldn't implicate anything at all about my preferences relative to
spelling reforms (in 1996 or otherwise) in other languages. So that means
that orthographic preferences aren't free-floating things, but are bound to
languages, and so are better attached to language primary-tags than off on
their own.
This situation rather suggests that there is a great deal of validity to
saying that Mongolian-in-Cyrillic is in fact a kind of Yiddish, as opposed
to being /merely/ the co-occurrence of two abstractions, one called
Mongolian, and one called Cyrillic. While we are quite free to view it as
a co-occurrence of two abstractions, I don't think that that's the way that
describes how users (as opposed to freelance Platonists) actually want to
deal with it, nor is it the way that describes the internal structure of
the approach that will solve people's problems the best way -- i.e., in
offering them a simple way to express what languages they want in what
scripts and have content-negotiation work based on that.
--
Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/author/sburke/