Print

Print


2011/4/8 Piotr Bański <[log in to unmask]>

> Hi Paul,
>
> Not a vulgar mistake, but a change of perspective of sorts, whereby you
> assume that "chapter" and "creed" are unique sequences of characters,
> derived from English but used basically in the same way as number-based
> values would be, as atomic identifiers of values in a predefined space.
>
> So much for arguing one side, now let me argue the other one: even the
> treatment of "chapter" and "creed" as symbolic values doesn't save the
> picture, because xml:lang may contain info on the *script* being used.
> So if you encode a Cyrillic text and use @xml:lang to indicate that,
> "creed" is not a valid value, because it's not in Cyrillic.
>
> This is so very WRONG that "short-sightedness" seems too mild when
> thinking of the origin of this rule. OTOH, I wouldn't really ask
> questions like "oh gosh, what are we to do now?", because the answer is
> that the only way to proceed appears to be to ignore the twisted
> attribute-related aspect of xml:lang (much in the spirit of what Lou
> wrote). And to possibly mildly watch over the shoulders of XML tool
> creators so that they don't get it too deep into their heads to follow
> the original Spec literally in this respect. @xml:lang appears to be yet
> another thing that is wrong with XML, and we just have to live with it
> until something better comes up.
>


The use case of expressing the language of a given piece of content,
independent of the constraints for xml:lang, is important for many XML based
vocabularies. The mechanism "langRule" proposed by ITS implements this use
case using XPath. See http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#language-information
The Roma services also provides a template "TEI with W3C ITS" including,
among others, "langRule" in the TEI header.

Felix



>
> Note that this doesn't close the original debate, it's just a way to do
> away with the side issue of attributes being put by force into some
> language and/or script. Let's just not bother about it, please, it's
> counterproductive and it leads us nowhere. Let's *explicitly* ignore it,
> because it's wrong and not worth our time or energy.
>
> Of course this issue should be borne in mind in any discussions on the
> future shape of XML.
>
> Best,
>
>  P.
>
>
> On 08.04.2011 21:08, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
> > So the lesson I should take from this is that I may safely
> > convert P3/P4
> >
> >   <div lang="wel" type="chapter" n="2"><head>Yr Ail Pennod</head>
> >     <div type="creed"><head>Pyngciau'r Ffydd.</head>
> >
> > to P5
> >
> >   <div xml:lang="wel" type="chapter" n="2"><head>Yr Ail Pennod</head>
> >     <div type="creed"><head>Pyngciau'r Ffydd.</head>
> >
> > not because the @xml:lang applies only to the element content, but
> > because thinking of "chapter" and "creed" as English words (though
> > probably a
> > valid interpretation in P3/P4) is (in P5) a vulgar mistake?
> > Lovely! And they say casuistry is dead.
> >
> > pfs
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Apr 2011, Lou Burnard wrote:
> >
> >> The last message in that thread is also quite useful, as background to
> >> my rather flippant comment about the war on attributes
> >>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=TEI-L&D=0&T=0&P=11958
> >>
> >> ,
> >>
> >> On 08/04/11 17:00, Piotr Ba?ski wrote:
> >>> Thanks for throwing some light on this, Lou,
> >>>
> >>> I've just located a fragment of a past discussion on xml:lang:
> >>>
> >>>
> http://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=TEI-L&T=0&F=&S=&P=9322
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (Marcus Bingenheimer's message of 10 Feb 2005)
> >>>
> >>> Well, that's one more thing for us LingSIG people to be aware (and
> maybe
> >>> even wary) of, I'm happy this has come up now.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>>    Piotr
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 08.04.2011 12:22, Lou Burnard wrote:
> >>>> Yes, the value of xml:lang definitionally specifies the natural
> >>>> language
> >>>> of all children, including the attributes, of the element that
> >>>> carries it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this was an issue which caused some concern in some quarters
> >>>> (Espen, are you still there?) when the issue of adopting xml:lang was
> >>>> first discussed, during the move to P4.
> >>>>
> >>>> In P3 the scope of the @lang attribute is rather ill defined. It
> >>>> probably was intended to relate only to the element content, but I am
> >>>> not sure that anyone ever thought through the full implications of
> >>>> that.
> >>>> Certainly it's unclear how exactly you would specify the language for
> >>>> one attribute but not another without doubling the number of
> >>>> attributes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, one of the consequences of that decision was that the War on
> >>>> Attributes promptly broke out, and we moved to the present simpler
> >>>> world
> >>>> in which attribute values rarely if ever use natural language, so just
> >>>> don't have to worry about hyphenation rules, script rules etc. They
> are
> >>>> (mostly) sequences of specific unicode characters to be interpreted as
> >>>> symbols only, despite their occasional resemblance to real language
> >>>> words (the same might, in passing, be said for the element or
> attribute
> >>>> identifiers)
> >>>>
> >>>> As Laurent has already pointed out this really doesn't seem to be a
> >>>> major problem. There is full scope for defining and controlling the
> >>>> meaning of the symbols used as attribute values in your ODD (using a
> >>>> <valList>) and indeed for documenting the language from which you drew
> >>>> them.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's interesting to note that one of the very first major
> controversies
> >>>> in the TEI concerned whether or not to permit attributes at all. The
> >>>> chair of the nascent metalanguage committee in fact resigned over this
> >>>> issue in 1989 or thereabouts. I sometimes wonder whether she'd have a
> >>>> wry chuckle at the way history has (partially) vindicated her.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 08/04/11 07:47, Piotr Ba?ski wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Stuart,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Half alive after a 15-hour transfer across the Puddle I can't resist
> >>>>> mentioning that you've apparently just demonstrated some horrible
> >>>>> short-sightedness on the part of the inventor(s) of xml:lang -- how
> >>>>> can
> >>>>> one force us to at the same time declare the language
> >>>>> *unconditionally*
> >>>>> for *both* element and attribute content?? Think of dictionaries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some part of my brain has a memory of something like xml:lang
> >>>>> pertaining
> >>>>> to element content alone, and of attributes not being addressed by
> it.
> >>>>> This memory is clearly wrong in the light of the recent quote from
> the
> >>>>> XML Spec. But is another memory, of the controversy between switching
> >>>>> from using @lang to @xml:lang, not related to that? Was @lang (of
> P3?)
> >>>>> meant for element content alone perhaps? I do hope I am missing
> >>>>> something here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because if what you say is as true as it apparently is, it's not
> >>>>> really
> >>>>> a matter of Lou being right or wrong, it's a matter of what attribute
> >>>>> values you are theoretically allowed to use on any element that
> >>>>> contains
> >>>>> a string in a language that you want to identify. Your example
> >>>>> concerned
> >>>>> @n, but isn't the same logic applicable to e.g. @type then? (etc. --
> >>>>> even if one tries to wiggle out of my question by saying that @type
> is
> >>>>> symbolic, it doesn't matter because xml:lang may also be about the
> >>>>> script, not just the language).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Goodnight,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     P.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> [Sorry if you have already received an email similar to this, I'm
> >>>>>> having
> >>>>>> email issues at my end.]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have come to realise that Lou is right about this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Even in Piotr's minimal case, xml:lang already has a meaning and a
> >>>>>> meaning that matters in the real world:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <linkGrp xml:id="...">
> >>>>>>     <ptr xml:id="..." target="..." type="..." xml:lang="pl" n="a"/>
> >>>>>>     <ptr xml:id="..." target="..." type="..." xml:lang="sw" n="b"/>
> >>>>>> </linkGrp>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The language of the @n attributes 'a' and 'b' are determined by
> their
> >>>>>> respective @xml:lang attributes. If systems potentially use @n
> >>>>>> attributes for collation or display (as we do at the NZETC), then
> >>>>>> language of the @n attributes matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thus, this is not a case where unspecified meaning in the standard
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>> be exploited to stash the language of the referent.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cheers
> >>>>>> stuart
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Paul Schaffner | [log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
> > 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>