d-langtag-ext Use Case (was: Re: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00.txt)

On 5/26/19 8:46 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I know it is flippant to say "that's not our problem," and I 
> apologize in advance for that, but trying to push through this 
> extension quickly, without consulting or even notifying the 
> language-tagging community, does not seem to me an appropriate way
> to compensate for this lapse. It was only by chance that Martin
> happened to spot this I-D and was able to bring it to our attention.

We requested a review of the Verifiable Credentials specification (via
[email protected]) in 2018 and again in Feb 2019.

I'll refrain from being flippant and not say "That you're just hearing
about this is 'not my problem'... how was I to know where you hang out
on the Internet and that you had an opinion about this? Why aren't you
also hanging out in public-i18n-core?". :) -- but, I don't think doing
stuff like that will get us to better i18n, which is what I'd like us to
focus on. :)

The reality is quite the contrary to what you suspect... a subset of
"us" have made this our problem and would like help figuring out the
right way to address it. We are under time pressure, which is not your
problem, but it doesn't alleviate the time pressure we're under. There
was plenty of time to address this issue, no one did, I'm making one
last attempt (because it's all the time I have) before this version of
our spec is set in stone.

To be clear, there is no attempt to "push this extension quickly"...
there is an attempt to try to see if there is a viable solution
quickly... because, again, it's all the time I have.

This is an attempt to see if the extension would work for the set of use
cases we're grappling with and then provide some guidance in our
specification. If there is no consensus on what the guidance should be,
I will happily say nothing about how one achieves good i18n wrt. base
direction across JSON-LD, JSON, CBOR, and other syntaxes (other than
pointing to STRING-META and shrugging).

Here's the use case if you (or anyone else) is still interested in helping:

https://github.com/w3c/rdf-dir-literal/issues/3#issuecomment-496004819

.... and why we're having this discussion:

https://github.com/w3c/rdf-dir-literal/issues/3#issuecomment-496006350

.... and what the current proposed spec text regarding i18n states:

https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/641.html#internationalization-considerations

Fundamentally, we're attempting to suggest a design pattern that will
gain adoption among JSON, RDF, JSON-LD, HTML, CBOR, and other syntaxes
that is capable of encoding both language and base direction in a way
that is backwards compatible *for simple use cases*, and deferring to
HTML snippets for the more complex use cases.

draft-msporny-d-langtag-ext-00 is misleading... it is just one
(alternative) piece of a potential solution that's proposed in the
proposed spec text above.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches