Language Maps [was RE: [uf-discuss] Microformats vs XML]
connect at stevenR2.com
Mon May 1 03:38:54 PDT 2006
Why not just specify or xml:lang attribute on the Microformat?
<a rel="reference" href="http://www.microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile" xml:lang="fr">
Carte de langue pour hCarte à hCard</a>
<class = "profile" xml:lang="fr">
<dt id='nom-et-prenoms' ref='fn'>nom-et-prenoms</dt>
<dd>Le nom et prenoms</dd>
<dt id='donne-le-nom' ref='given-name'>donne-le-nom</dt>
<dd>Donne le nom</dd>
<dt id='nom-de-famille' ref='family-name'>nom-de-famille</dt>
<dd>Nom de famille</dd>
That way an interpreter could just check the value of this and map the class name.
This would allow me to easily have an English, Spanish and French hCard on the same page.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Joe Andrieu" <joe at andrieu.net>
Reply-To: Microformats Discuss <microformats-discuss at microformats.org>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 01:33:51 -0700
>> From: Tantek Çelik Sunday, April 30, 2006 6:56 PM
>> To: microformats-discuss
>> Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] Microformats vs XML
>> On 4/30/06 6:20 PM, "Karl Dubost" <karl at w3.org> wrote:
>> > And your page has class names in English when you are using another
>> > language. -1
>> Thus with microformats, you may use both the standard microformat class
>> names, AND class names in your own non-English language if you wish:
>> <span class="family-name soyad">Çelik</span>
>> ("soyad" is Turkish for family-name)
>> Whereas with POX markup standards, you are relegated to only using the
>> element names from the spec.
>The current microformat model is certainly better than POX, but I think it
>still leaves something to be desired. This approach still requires that
>everyone uses the Microformats Approved(r) Anglo-biased namespace, even if
>they get to add their own term to the class.
>To the extent we can enable other peoples and languages to "own"
>Microformats and participate as first class citizens, I suggest it would be
>a Good Thing(tm). Couldn't we allow a mapping of any microformat into any
>language? This seems to be a simple solution for both humans and computers.
>If we utilize the microformat attribute I mentioned in my previous email (or
>simply standardize on a profile mechanism), we could see something like
>And in the hcarte-profile, we see something like this (again, apologies for
>any technical errors):
><a rel="reference" href="http://www.microformats.org/wiki/hcard-profile">
>Carte de langue pour hCarte à hCard</a>
><class = "profile">
> <dt id='nom-et-prenoms' ref='fn'>nom-et-prenoms</dt>
> <dd>Le nom et prenoms</dd>
> <dt id='donne-le-nom' ref='given-name'>donne-le-nom</dt>
> <dd>Donne le nom</dd>
> <dt id='nom-de-famille' ref='family-name'>nom-de-famille</dt>
> <dd>Nom de famille</dd>
>My apologies for my French, but hopefully it gets the idea across.
>Initially I wasn't sure if the hCard reference terms should be
>human-readable, rather than attributes of the dictionary entry. If we are
>going with the culturally sensitive approach, then I think the profile
>should be 100% human readable /in the presenting language/.
>Thus, if a French author/developer discovers the above mentioned
>microformat, they may simply use it the same way the first user did:
>All without any requirement of seeing or using English except the one
>reference to hCard in the title of the profile. (And technically that could
>be cut out). Plus, the elements of the microformat are now semantically
>relevant to the human author. So, the French soccer-dad who wants to put his
>daughter's soccer schedule online doesn't have to keep mentally translating
>between the English hcard class names and his native language. This makes
>Microformats much easier to use, especially in cultures and countries where
>English is not quite the standardized "second tongue."
>Once any microformat profile has been mapped to a language, it is easily
>language-friendly to anyone using that language, assuming they can find the
>mapping (another argument for a central registry).
>I expect some might see this approach as offering the potential for chaos.
>However, the profile would still be a 1:1 mapping to a well-understood
>microformat. And if we have a reliable profile mechanism, the automated
>discovery of the semantic translation would be straightforward. Hence,
>humans get to use the language they want and computers get clean semantic
>data. Isn't that what is at the heart of the Microformats approach?
>Does this make any sense?
>joe at andrieu.net
>+1 (805) 705-8651
>microformats-discuss mailing list
>microformats-discuss at microformats.org
More information about the microformats-discuss