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

RE: [pls] About I18N comments

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:30:23 -0000
To: <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Cc: "'Baggia Paolo'" <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com>
Message-ID: <008d01c71ab3$decaa880$6601a8c0@w3cishida>

Here are some notes for discussion within the i18n WG, prior to responding
formally to Paolo.

Paolo, I'm just copying you on this for information at the moment.  We'll
respond by individual threads.

See below...


============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)

http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Baggia Paolo [mailto:paolo.baggia@loquendo.com] 
> Sent: 04 December 2006 11:07
> To: Felix Sasaki; Richard Ishida
> Cc: Baggia Paolo; www-voice@w3.org
> Subject: [pls] About I18N comments
> 
...
> Paolo Baggia, editor PLS spec.
> ==========
> R103-7:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - You asked: "Please make it clearer, throughout the document, when
>   talking about multiple instances of grapheme or phoneme, whether
>   this is useful for speech synthesis or speech recognition."
> - We asked you specific points to be clarified.
> - No answer
> - Not sure if the comments still applies to the second LCWD [3]
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0066.html
> - VBWG asks for clarification to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0057.html 

This was a bit complicated to put together.  I think I'm happy to let the
PLS folks do as they see fit after having received the comment.


> 
> ==========
> R103-20:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - Request to reference: "RFC3066 or its successors"
> - Discussion on the right reference.
> - [3] includes a version you suggested. 
> - If it is fine, please send final acceptance
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0079.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0085.html
> - Comment to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-07-28)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JulSep/0027.html 

I think we should try to get them to use a BCP 47 URI, rather than point to
RFC 4646 directly.  I'm still waiting on the IETF to clarify which of the
two URIs they recommended is the best one - if they don't respond in time,
maybe we should just choose one.


> 
> ==========
> R103-21:
> Resolution: Rejected
> 
> - Request: "How is dc:language="en-US" meant to be interpreted
>   if it appears in a metadata element? How does it affect
>   the xml:lang declaration on PLS elements?"
> - We rejected it, because: "We do not see any relationship
>   between the two declarations. The attribute xml:lang is
>   mandatory in PLS and dc:language will be ignored."
> - No answer
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0080.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0070.html 

I think it is confusing to keep the dc:language in the example without any
explanation, so I'd like to suggest that they remove it.


> 
> ==========
> R103-30:
> Resolution: Rejected
> 
> - You asked to add markup in the example element.
> - We rejected it with motivations.
> - No answer
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0089.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0075.html 

Well, I think we made our request clearly and PLS want to do something
different.  At least it will not be impossible to provide bidi embedding
information.  I don't know whether we should push back again.

> 
> ==========
> R103-35:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - You asked clarification on Section 5.5.
> - We suggested that issue R103-36 will significantly change 
> Section 5.5.
>   We will propose new wording (now in [3])and we will welcome 
> your review.
> - You answered to be happy to review.
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0094.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0080.html
> - Comments to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-06-14)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0127.html 

I think we can accept this now.  The new edits improve things a lot.

> 
> ==========
> R103-36:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - You asked to solve the Homograph disambiguation issue.
> - We proposed a mechanism in [3]
> - You should review it.
> - Other groups asked to change that mechanism and our solution
>   seems to be fine for them.
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0095.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0082.html
> - Comment to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-06-14)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0126.html 

Well, the mechanism looks like what we were asking for, although I'm not
clear why the (last) example in section 5.5 declares xmlns:mypos in
<lexicon>, since these are attribute values.

> 
> 
> ==========
> List of the issues - Implicitly Accepted (see [4]) ==========
> R103-26:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - Asked clarification on TTS and ASR in Section 4.5 [2]
> - We clarified the issue and rejected your comment.
> - You asked us to see comments at [5]
> - You should clarify if you accept our resolution, see also
>   Section 4.5 [3]
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0085.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0072.html
> - Comments to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-06-14)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0119.html 

ok.


> 
> ==========
> R103-33:
> Resolution: Accepted
> 
> - Asked clarification on TTS and ASR in Section 5.4 [2]
> - We accepted your comment with modification and added
>   clarifications in the spec
> 
> + E-mail Trail
> - Original Comment Richard Ishida (2006-03-21)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0092.html
> - VBWG official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-05-26)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0078.html
> - Comment to VBWG official response Richard Ishida (2006-06-14)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0118.html
> - VBWG updated official response to last call issue VBWG (2006-07-28)
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JulSep/0024.html 

I don't see any expansion to section 1.2.

> 
> ===========
> References:
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006JanMar/0096.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-pronunciation-lexicon-20060131/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-pronunciation-lexicon-20061026/
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/pronunciation-lexicon/pls-disp.html
> [5] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0118.html 
> 
> 
> Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom 
> Italia S.p.A.
> 
> ================================================
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the 
> persons above and may contain confidential information. If 
> you have received the message in error, be informed that any 
> use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it 
> immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you 
> have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
> <mailto:webmaster@telecomitalia.it>webmaster@telecomitalia.it.
>  Thank you<http://www.loquendo.com>www.loquendo.com
> ================================================
> 
Received on Friday, 8 December 2006 10:30:34 GMT

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