W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-geo@w3.org > January 2006

RE: I18n quick tips master

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 17:39:59 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060108173418.0689cab0@localhost>
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, "'GEO'" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'Shawn Henry'" <shawn@w3.org>

Hello Richard,

At 19:32 06/01/07, Richard Ishida wrote:

 >Hm, yes.  I originally did have colons, but changed to be more like the WAI
 >cards. http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/tips.gif  I also found that it gave
 >the impression of more space, which made the text look better.  So I think I
 >prefer to keep as is.

I guess I can live with that.

 >> - The second point (Escapes) uses terms such as "numeric
 >> character reference",
 >>    which not very many people understand. I think I have earlier
 >>    made the suggestion to use examples. There is still enough
 >>    space on the second line to include them. So what about:
 >>    o Escapes. Only use escapes (numeric character references and
 >>      entities, e.g. &#x3B1;, &alpha;) in specific circumstances.
 >
 >This is interesting.  We added (numeric character references and entities)
 >to the text as a result of discussion during last week's telecon.  People
 >felt that 'escapes' was not clear enough, but that people would understand
 >better with the additional text. I like the idea of examples, though.  I'm
 >even wondering whether we could just say:
 >
 >Escapes. Only use escapes (eg. &#xE1;, &#225; or &aacute;) in specific
 >circumstances.
 >
 >What do people think?

That would definintely be fine with me. I think there are more people who
recognize the examples than who recognize the technical terms.

I'm a bit worried to use &aacute; (and the corresponding numbers) as an
example, because the change that that doesn't need an escape is much
higher than e.g. for &alpha;, and we shouldn't give people an example
that they in most cases shouldn't use.


 >Martin, I'm anxious not to use up all the remaining space on the line if
 >possible, since I expect we'll end up translating these cards, and
 >translations will be longer than the English.  It's pretty tight already, so
 >whatever space we can save will be good.

Ah, I see. Didn't think about that.

 >> - Language: The word 'declare' is repeated. What about just:
 >>    o Language: Declare the text-processing language of documents
 >>      and indicate any internal language changes.
 >>    We may even be able to add something like "e.g. using xml:lang",
 >>    although that may get too long. (In general, I think that
 >>    a few more examples would help people making the right connections
 >>    and getting more of an impression of how this is related to their
 >>    day-to-day work.)
 >
 >Yes, removing 'declaration' may be ok.  What do others think?  This
 >certainly helps wrt text expansion in translation.
 >
 >I intentionally didn't add a reference to xml:lang, since I'm trying to be
 >more general.  It could also be declared in lang attributes or even in http
 >headers.  The longer HTML version will point to information about all that
 >kind of detail.

I understand.

Regards,    Martin. 
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 06:42:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:03 UTC