The "not-language" identifier (was: RE: Mandarin Chinese, Simplified Script)

[Addison Phillips]

> FOR: On the other hand, some applications may have enforced
> this need: in the world of xml:lang, you need some kind of override if an
> xml:lang has been described on an element at a higher level; the
> empty value doesn't really do it as I recall. 

This is not true. The empty value (for whatever scope it has) overrides any enclosing values.

<a xml:lang="en">
  <b xml:lang="">
     <c>fubar</c>
  </b>
</a>

The language value of element <c> is "".

But I concede Peter and other's point about ISO 639, etc. I'm still with Harold on this: I don't like the idea. But I can see the point.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of L.Gillam
> Sent: 2005?6?16? 6:48
> To: ietf-languages
> Subject: The "not-language" identifier (was: RE: Mandarin
> Chinese,Simplified Script)
> 
> 
> I can see both sides of this at present.
> 
> AGAINST: If you have a language identifier for "not language",
> can I have one for "not French"? "not English"? "neither French nor
> English"?
> Perhaps Debbie's floodgates?
> 
> >From a 639 perspective, where could it sit - 639-4 as a general
> principle? 639-5 as the family of all not-languages? And what
> kind of documentation does one use to justify it, or is it a pure
> exception?
> 
> If it's not language, why use a language tag and then tag it to
> say that it isn't? And, hence, need to create a tag amongst
> language tags that represents not being a language? For some
> reason, identifying something as "language = it isn't" feels odd
> to me, as would doing the same with a lot of other identifiers.
> "gender = it hasn't"; "country = doesn't exist" etc.
> 
> FOR: On the other hand, some applications may have enforced
> this need: in the world of xml:lang, you need some kind of override if an
> xml:lang has been described on an element at a higher level; the
> empty value doesn't really do it as I recall. Essentially, though,
> isn't it xml:lang that should be suppressed/negated rather than the
> self-negating value? There may be other such examples.
> 
> It's that ideal/real divide again, I believe.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Peter
> > Constable
> > Sent: 16 June 2005 14:05
> > To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> > Subject: RE: Mandarin Chinese, Simplified Script
> >
> >
> > > From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk]
> >
> >
> > > You miss the point Peter... 639 is about language identifiers
> >
> > With a ratio of roughly 2500:1 language-related IDs to
> > special-case IDs
> > if this one were added, I think it would still be pretty obvious that
> > 639 is about language identifiers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter Constable
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages