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

Minutes: GEO telecon 041103

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:46:23 -0000
To: "GEO" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20041109114623.411694EEC4@homer.w3.org>

Attendees: Richard, Susan, Addison, Russ
Regrets: Deborah

This is an edited transcript of the IRC log.
Thanks to Susan for taking notes during meeting.


Actions

[18:04] <r12a> RI: send FAQ list to SM.
[18:04] <r12a> DOne
[18:04] <r12a> DC: Run Safari tests.
[18:05] <r12a> Done, but problem with pdfs
[18:05] <r12a> DC: Run base UA tests.
[18:05] <r12a> oustanding


Info share

[18:07] <susan> ri: sent note re: arabic /mathML - you can subscribe to list
[18:07] <susan> ri: tweaking tests
[18:07] <susan> applying more std look/feel/approach
[18:08] <susan> trying to add more info re: what we're trying to test
[18:08] <susan> coloring added
[18:08] <susan> orange chosen -- red and green taken
[18:08] <susan> ri has also released rss feeds and change to news -- see site
[18:08] <susan> recommend for wider use than just us
[18:09] <susan> end infoshare


Review of work items

[18:10] <susan> still no movement on using non-ASCII
[18:10] <susan> lang decl wide review to be discussed today
[18:11] <susan> tests  to support techs - still ongoing for DC
[18:11] <susan> nothing new from Andrew
[18:11] <susan> ri to send more specific suggestions to sm
[18:11] <susan> need more stuff in pipeline!
[18:12] * Zakim +Russ; got it

Discussion

=======================
##1 where to handle comments on docs discussions
[18:14] <susan> traditionally, new versions of working docs, we ask for comments on list
[18:15] <susan> each tracked there on table
[18:15] <susan> ri has followed suit on ours - but group isn't subscribed
[18:16] <susan> ri proposes  we ask them  to send to  intl
[18:16] <r12a> agreed: request that comments on WDs be sent to www-international@w3.org
[18:17] <susan> useful for feedback before publishing - 400 people


========================
##2 should we hold FTF at tech plenary?
[18:18] <susan> russ asks what we would cover
[18:18] <susan> ri - work on other working drafts, work on new techniques doc 
[18:19] <susan> addison - FTF important way to get more productivity eg. large editing tasks
[18:20] <susan> ap - advantage of tech plenary is interface with other groups to share info on our docs
[18:21] <susan> ri - co-location is to sit in with other groups during the week
[18:21] <susan> russ - goals: try to rekindle 'mo
[18:21] <susan> russ - would hope for more than 2 or 3 of us
[18:23] <susan> russ - question is how to work with Tex, Andrea from sun?
[18:23] <susan> ap - between now and techplen, GEO should be rechartering with strong recruitng
[18:24] <susan> russ - good to plan on something; hope to get DC over too
[18:24] <susan> ri - march still a long way off; time to think on agenda
[18:25] <susan> russ - define people and groups we ought to meet with, besides accessibilty
[18:25] <susan> russ - maybe others we should be evangelizing
[18:26] <susan> ri - tech plenary more useful and interesting for sm than ac
[18:27] <susan> ri - will discuss this more in future. russ is right: we need to work on recruiting again
[18:27] <susan> ap - companies that "should" contribute a person
[18:28] <susan> ri - guy from Apple a possibility


GEO work items list now

========================
##3 FAQ - Mark Davis comments and RI reply
[18:29] <susan> ri thinks mark right re: more heavily qualify that this is just one way of seeing
[18:30] <susan> and back off of "definitions" - say intro for exampel to people who don't have a clud
[18:30] <susan> doesn't represent view of i18n activity as a whole
[18:31] <apphillips> Note: Andrea Vine also sent comments
[18:32] <susan> ri - should also say that there are widely divergent uses of term and define audience more carefully
[18:32] <susan> and point to alternative definitions
[18:33] <susan> russ - do we need to say this FAQ is framing for all our docs? 
[18:34] <susan> ap - that might be GEO intention, but they are stand alone canonical defs
[18:34] <susan> russ - it would be assumed these were our base definitions
[18:36] <susan> sm - could use new faq to show for introductory purpose 
[18:36] <susan> ap - in current form, WILL be used as canonical and cited
[18:36] <susan> ap - professionals will want them to reflect all the expected nuances
[18:36] <susan> ap - nice tight working defs, but don't cover a lot of aspects
[18:37] <susan> that occur in different realms  - eg. web services
[18:37] <susan> ri - issue is when these are perceived as "Definitions"
[18:39] <susan> sm - intended as non-technical
[18:40] <susan> ap - intent understood, but when we see definition in place of authority
[18:40] <susan> we want that def to be as much like our internal def as possible and 
[18:40] <susan> to cover all different cases -- but that's complex to do
[18:41] <susan> ri - we can rescind or how can we alter to make acceptable
[18:41] <susan> russ - agrees with ap that no matter how we word, it's googlable on w3c site
[18:42] <susan> russ - solution is give examples
[18:43] <susan> russ - will it muddle to give two or three sets of definitions
[18:44] <susan> sm - change ? to "I'm new to this arena. Give me a working def to start with?
[18:44] <susan> russ - but will still be there
[18:44] <susan> ri - "one possible explanation of l10n -- amongst the many -- is..."
[18:45] <susan> ri - adding links to other  docs might help
[18:45] <susan> ap - repurpose to use explicitly within GEO docs
[18:45] <susan> ap  - dodge issue by changing audience
[18:46] <susan> ap -  no matter what text you put, they will be read as THE definitions
[18:47] <susan> ap - personally, not wholly satisfied with this being presented as the canonical def - it leaves different issues for different people
[18:47] <susan> russ - so do we try to make defs ones that we refer back to when we create GEO docs
[18:48] <susan> ri - hoping other groups create FAQs that we would be involved in -- generically from i18n activity
[18:48] <susan> ri - get away from calling these definitions
[18:48] <susan> russ - then what are they? difficult to think of alternative
[18:49] <susan> ri - try to reword and call out this is not a "definition"
[18:50] <susan> russ - a rose is a rose
[18:50] <susan> russ -- agrees with sm on need to have something out there to help people understand basics
[18:51] <susan> ri - say here's one way but other links, but per ap once we have the words...
[18:51] <susan> it by default is our definition
[18:51] <susan> ap - how about "The Beginner's Tutorial"
[18:52] <susan> ap - has a remedial presentation to set stage for intelligent conversation
[18:52] <susan> ap - this is good faq but  only tip of iceberg
[18:53] <susan> ap - need is not to change words per se, but must give people the framework they need
[18:53] <susan> FAQ may not be appropriate vehicle
[18:54] <susan> ri - it's a starting point, but
[18:55] <susan> russ - oK with it if it points to other resources
[18:55] <r12a> sm - feedback coming from people who aren't part of intended audience
[18:58] <Zakim> -susan

This discussion continued for another half hour.  Summary of conclusion by RI:

We should consider temporarily rescinding this FAQ, then attempt to obtain agreement from other groups in i18n WG on (very high level!) definitions of l10n and i18n.  We may need to drop g11n, as it is just too difficult to get agreement on - although we can mention that fact in passing. If consensus can be achieved without too much effort, republish as agreed definitions for use as an introduction by *newcomers* to the i18n site - this is absolutely not intended to be exhaustive, unequivocal technical specification of the terms.  We felt that we are already pretty close to agreement for l10n and i18n definitions.

If this gets bogged down, think again.  

RI to follow up with Susan and get her opinion before proceeding.

=============================
##4 Andrea's suggestion to not uppercase i18n and l10n
Discussed v briefly. RI to follow up.
Tried to recall why previous decision was to uppercase.  Believe that it most likely had to do with the 'l' in l10n being ambiguous when in lowercase ( could be seen as '1' or 'I' ).  Would look strange to use L10n or I18n in the middle of a sentence.

RI to follow up.



============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info:
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

W3C Internationalization:
http://www.w3.org/International/ 

Publication blog:
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
 
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2004 11:46:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:39 GMT