MR-Received: by mta REDMS1.MUAS; Relayed; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:16:18 +0000
MR-Received: by mta RE5; Relayed; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:15:24 +0000
MR-Received: by mta RITIG4; Relayed; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:15:09 +0000
Disclose-recipients: prohibited
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 16:16:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: Misha Wolf <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Cougar (the next version of HTML) and i18n
In-reply-to:
<[log in to unmask]>
To: Unicore <[log in to unmask]>, Unicode Discussion <[log in to unmask]>,
www-international <[log in to unmask]>, www-html <[log in to unmask]>,
meta2 <[log in to unmask]>
Message-id: <5318161615041997/A84642/REDMS2/11B47C101200*@MHS>
Autoforwarded: false
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
UA-content-id: 11B47C101200
X400-MTS-identifier: [;5318161615041997/A84642/REDMS2]
Hop-count: 2
Cougar, the next version of HTML, has a number of problems in the i18=
n area.
I would urge those of you who have access to the W3C's member-only ar=
ea to
study the current draft and to comment on problems to the address giv=
en there.
Cougar is likely to be available to non-members in May.
The problems I have found include many areas of incompatibility with =
RFC 2070,
such as:
1. The document character set is limited to plane 0 of Unicode (aka =
the=20
BMP).
2. The <HTML> tag does not permit the LANG attribute.
3. Language tags are defined as those of RFC 1766 plus those of the=
=20
Ethnologue.
All of the above highlight a process problem with Cougar. The author=
s are
clearly both competent and well-intentioned, but are doing a very lar=
ge and
complex job and haven't got the time to be experts in everything. Wh=
at is
needed is the involvement of experts in specific fields, in this case=
, i18n.=20
At least one of the authors of RFC 2070 (maybe Martin D=FCrst) should=
be invited
to help incorporate RFC 2070 in Cougar.
Point 3. above highlights another problem. Because of the complexity=
and
interdependence of the various standards and protocols in use on the =
Internet,
it is essential that the development of these standards is carried ou=
t in a
modular fashion, allowing those who have an expertise in a particular=
area to
have visibility of, and comment on, developments in that area. If RF=
C 1766 is
to be replaced by a new standard, an Internet Draft should be circula=
ted to,
and discussed on, the relevant mailing lists. An HTML spec is emphat=
ically
*not* the right place to modify the definition of language tags. Tur=
ning to
the Ethologue proposal in particular, this must *not* be allowed to p=
roceed as
is, due to the widespread use of a different set of 3-letter language=
codes in
the library community. These codes are currently being voted on for =
inclusion
in ISO 639. In principle, it would be possible to include the Ethnol=
ogue's
3-letter codes as well as these other 3-letter codes in a daughter-of=
-RFC 1766,
by splitting the name space (eg prefix Ethnologue codes with "e-", ju=
st as IANA
language codes are prefixed with "i-"). This is *not* to be taken as=
an
endorsement, on my part, of one or other (or, for that mattter, eithe=
r) set of
3-letter codes.
We need to:
a) fix the process,
b) fix the individual problems.
Misha
===
|