At 00:10 +0200 2001/06/11, Lars Hellström wrote:
>At Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:29:19 +0100, Chris Rowley wrote:
>[...]
>>Therefore, rather than attempting to categorise the necessary
>>information and devise suitable ways to provide it, Frank and I came
>>up with the idea of simply supplying a single logical label for every
>>ICR string.  Since the first, and still the overwhelmingly most
>>diverse,
>>parts of this information came from the needs of multi-lingual
>>documents, we called this label the `language' (maybe not a good
>>choice).
...
>I suggest that we use the term `context' rather than `language' here.
>Quoting Webster's, `context' means:
>
>   The part of a written discourse in which a certain word, phrase
>   or passage appears, necessary to point the meaning, as, it is
>   hard to tell the exact meaning of a word out of context.

The problem here is that "context" is already heavily used in computer
lingo: An <em|environment|> is in computer lingo a function that maps a
name to a storage location, and every such environment produces a (lookup)
context.

Normally, what above is called a ``language'', one is already calling a
``localization'' in computer lingo. (Which is may be hard to accept for
mathematicians, as a localization has a different meaning in math.)

A localization may involve the choice of a human language, but also the
other data, like date and number formats, etc.

  Hans Aberg