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

RE: [pls] About I18N comments

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:13:23 +0900
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org, 'Baggia Paolo' <paolo.baggia@loquendo.com>
Message-Id: <1165580003.5058.22.camel@fsasaki-desktop>

Hi Richard,

I'm fine with your proposal and would especially push back on R103-30.
The explanation at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-voice/2006AprJun/0075.html that
the element type xs:string allows for directional marks is not
satisfactory. Markup like the @dir attribute is preferred over such
marks, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/NOTE-unicode-xml-20030613/#Bidi for
an explanation (maybe Richard already pointed to this, I didn't check).

Felix

On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 10:30 +0000, Richard Ishida wrote:
> 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 12:13:33 GMT

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