W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-geo@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Language techniques: biggish changes

From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:47:21 +0000
Message-ID: <420B49C9.1010203@emi.ac.ma>
To: "Miller, Susan K" <susan.k.miller@boeing.com>
CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, GEO <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>

Miller, Susan K wrote:

>Hi Richard & all
> 
>See my comments below.
> 
>Best regards
> 
>Susan
>
>Abstract 
> I agree with Deborah's earlier email comment and would only remove the
>word "such" from her suggested sentence.
>
>Introduction
>- 1.1 Agree with DC on "author", but I would not put quote marks around
>either of the other words.
>  
>
+1

>- 1.1 I might say "a localization group" rather than "the", agreeing
>with DC in wondering how many of them exist at this point.
>
>- 1.2 I like this section, although I would say "stand alone" rather
>than "self-sufficient."
>- 1.2 I would delete the final user agent comment (that DC had issues
>with) and leave all discussion of them to 1.4
>
>- 1.3 Agree with DC in questioning "the right editing tools". Don't we
>just mean the appropriate or relevant ones?
>  
>
What is right for X may be wrong with Y. "appropriate" is the right 
(...) word.

>- 1.4 Overall, I agree with DC's comments re: this section being ripe
>for simplification.
>
>Important Concepts aka Definitions
>- Primary language.  Works as previously edited for me. Would disagree
>with DC's foray into renaming it 'audience language.'
>  
>
While "audience language" is perhaps a more meaningful expression (user 
oriented), I agree to keep the original expession "Primary language" 
which is more accurate.  Note that "audience  language" could be applied 
to text-processing-language also. (styling a portion of text with a 
different language is also intended for audience...)

>- 3.1 "Primary language metadata is usually best declared outside the
>document in the HTTP Content-Language header, although there may be
>situations where an internal declaration ..." 
>begs the question for me. Don't we talk about this somewhere? If so,
>link to it?
>- 3.2 "The default text processing language is not necessarily the same
>as the primary language of a document."  
>  
>
The concept of 'default text processing language' should be further 
defined. Has it nothing to do with the primary language? Is it 
completely or partly dependant from primary the language? What about the 
case of more than one primary language?

>OK. I'll bite: add example of when they'd be different? 
>  
>
>-3.3 Introduces the term "natural language" - previously undefined.
>Worrisome.
>-3.3 Lovely use of the word "conflated," which I can appreciate after
>having finally found the definition in the online UK dictionary after
>the US one did not have it. Perhaps the more pedestrian "confused" would
>work for us colonials and the ESL crowd? ;-)
>-3.3 Final sentence again seems to beg a link.
>Declaring the language of a page
>This section is a big mouthful to swallow.  It may be that the language
>section of 
>http://www.w3.org/International/geo/html-tech/outline/html-authoring-out
>line.html has resolved most of my issues.  Turthfully, I'm getting a bit
>confused with all the different versions of this doc.  If it is still an
>issue -- RI would know best -- I would like to talk on the telecon
>about:
>Using DC's suggestion to not just retitle it "How to" but in addition to
>divide it into two parts: How to declare the primary language and How to
>declare the text processing language. We pop back and forth a bit, also
>discussing text processing lang first, after the reverse order in the
>definitions. I think we could group these easily and eliminate a
>substantial amount of redundant text which I believe might confuse the
>reader.
>I would also be interested in investigating the idea of a "Commentary"
>heading within sections. It was once brought to my attention that in the
>corporate training environment we made a mistake in conducting classes
>as if we were still in college ("at uni"?) when what people really
>needed was less a five-day theory seminar and more of a two-hour quick
>and dirty "here's how to use this on YOUR job." 
>The discussion in this section in particular, while lovely to read,
>seems to me a bit more than I, the developer need to know to do my job.
>In my mind, a reader "dipping in to a particular section to find out how
>to perform a specific task" may be thinking, "Just show me the markup."
>So, I am wondering what you might think about "facts" first ie. the
>technique and really pertinent info and then the "commentary" for the
>more leisurely reader, who voluntarily chooses the additional
>information, without reading through it for fear of missing a fact. 
>
This is an ideal situation in general. In reading, we all would like to 
read  "the facts" first (the essential), and then if we wish, read about 
the details.
In the case at hand, I think that the structure of the text and it's 
presentation helps to find "facts" to read. But it's my opinion.

May be a summary  for each section could meet this objective?

Regards, Najib

>I'll
>not insist on a crystal ball icon for specific commentary on what the
>future may hold.
>  
>
>Again, perhaps I have missed the versioning boat and this is a
>non-issue. If so, apologies.
>Other
>- Swedish/svenska technique: Re: "russian doll" approach, would just
>"nested" be suggestive enough? Also pls change 'show' to 'shows' there.
>10 Specifying the language of a link destination
>- I think the potential problem discussed here would be handled in the
>course of reasonable site maintenance and is overemphasized.
>- Could this be placed physically next to the Swedish/svenska one? It
>seems similar?
>General
>I would delete number references when linking to other sections, eg. "5
>Definitions" reads to me like the number of definitions provided ("Four
>Weddings..."?) 
>I think I have already picked at the language, "Consider using" eg. for
>more than one primary language.  To me this verb remains mushy. Should I
>or shouldn't I? Are you recommending it or not? "Plusses" and "Minuses"?
>"If you do" and "If you don't"?
>Maybe I am icon/header crazed, but if there are "definite problems" (eg.
>"Note that there is a definite problem when dealing with multilingual
>title elements."), I'd like to see that called out a little more
>strongly.
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Najib TOUNSI (mailto:tounsi@w3.org)
Bureau W3C au Maroc (http://www.w3c.org.ma/)
Ecole Mohammadia d'Ingenieurs, BP 765 Agdal-RABAT Maroc (Morocco)
Phone : +212 (0) 37 68 71 74  Fax : +212 (0) 37 77 88 53
Mobile: +212 (0) 61 22 00 30
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2005 11:49:41 GMT

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