W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-core@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:52:46 +0900
Message-ID: <4504B35E.7020305@w3.org>
To: ishida@w3.org
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org, public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hello i18n core,

This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3481 for our discussion .

Thank you very much for your comment. We propose not to change the name
of the data category, and keep "translatability".

Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't hear
 from you , we will assume this issue as closed.

Regards,

Felix


ishida@w3.org wrote:
> Comment from the i18n review of:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
> 
> Comment 5
> At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> Editorial/substantive: E
> Owner: RI
> 
> Location in reviewed document:
> 6.2
> 
> Comment: 
> 'Translatability' is not a good term for this, since it is already used in the sense of internationalization to allow for easy translation. Perhaps "Translation information" would be better, and more consistent with other data category titles.
> 
> 
> FS: The first ITS WD already talks about "translatabilty". So does the requirements document http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-itsreq-20050805/#transinfo . Given this long history of the term which you must be aware of, I disagree with your request to change it. I also disagree with your argument of consistency with other data categories: Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a subset of data categories, see also the conformance section which separates data categories. Hence, consistency of naming is not so important, but rather consistency between ITS working drafts, implementations, presentations, ... . 
> 
> 
> I18n: There is no need to be consistent in this regard with past working drafts. People should expect Working Drafts to change, as described in the status section. There is a much greater need to go forward with appropriate terminology.
> 
> 
> We don't see that this is a difficult change to make. 
> 
> 
> "Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a subset of data categories" We believe this is irrelevant to appropriate naming of a given data category, but in addition I don't think you are proposing that the 'translatability' category will always be usedindependently of other implementations, so I don't think this argument holds. 
> 
> 
> We may be prepared to accept that 'Translation Information' is too vague. Alternative suggestions for the title are 'Translate Information' or 'Translate Directive'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 00:53:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 October 2008 10:18:51 GMT