W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-geo@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Agenda for GEO mtg at Tech Plen

From: Deborah Cawkwell <deborah.cawkwell@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:41:24 -0000
Message-ID: <418B7E44473AC34488C9E730D09FF3CF027F8B0F@bbcxue204.national.core.bbc.co.uk>
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "GEO" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Cc: "Daniel Dardailler" <danield@w3.org>, "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org>
Could we consider I18N glossary/terminology part to GEO? It's harder to ask questions/discuss problems without the right terminology.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-i18n-geo-request@w3.org on behalf of Richard Ishida 
	Sent: Thu 26/02/2004 16:46 
	To: GEO 
	Cc: 'Daniel Dardailler'; 'Coralie Mercier' 
	Subject: Agenda for GEO mtg at Tech Plen

	Here is a rough agenda.  We will plan timings on the day, but the order is probably right.  Please send in additonal items you'd like to cover/address.
	[1] Directions
	Please provide other questions/topics for discussion by email:
	Have we made good progress? Review current deliverables status.
	How can we make better progress, especially on Techniques?
	Establish targets for Techniques before end of charter.
	Recharter is close - what deliverables should we sign up for?
	Other topics related to rechartering.
	If GEO becomes a separate working group, how to work with rest of i18n? What are the issues? How to address them?
	What should we do about outreach activities? We had some suggestions in a recent telecon http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-geo/2003Nov/0003.html : should we make plans to do these?  Are there more things to do?
	Richard was looking at sites like http://www.boxesandarrows.com/ recently.  This is very clearly a an attractive place to visit regularly for information.  Note also that they accept articles from others (http://www.boxesandarrows.com/about/writeforus.php).  Should we be trying to emulate this, and raise the visibility and appeal of the site more?  Should this be in conjunction with others at W3C - eg QA?
	[2] (Brief) review of Framework topics
	Recent changes made to layering by RI.
	Should we add information about FAQs, etc. to the Framework doc?
	Approve (small) changes to the framework doc to be introduced by RI, with a view to possible republication.
	Should we remove titles from Authoring Techniques where there is no content?
	[3] Tutorial review
	Review tutorial material with an eye to:
	1.      publish the tutorials
	2.      incorporate information in tutorials into the Authoring techniques
	Characters and Encoding: http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-char-enc.html

	Language markup: http://www.w3.org/International/tutorials/tutorial-lang.html

	[4] Continue review of comments on Authoring Techniques
	# Bert Bos et al. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2003OctDec/0009.html

	# Karl Dubost http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Oct/0007.html

	# Charles McAthieneville http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Oct/0002.html

	# Francois Yergeau http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Oct/0001.html

	# Liam Quinn http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2003Oct/0000.html

	agree responses
	Richard Ishida
	contact info: http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/




BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. 
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. 
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 15:41:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:01 UTC