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

RE: New article for REVIEW: Working with composite messages

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:33:36 +0100
To: "'Martin Duerst'" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "'GEO'" <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020d01c6534e$8755a7d0$6501a8c0@w3cishida>

Hi Martin,

Thanks for the comments (though you only just made it before publication ;-)
(I guess you have a good excuse, though, lately)

Responses below...

> From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] 
> Sent: 27 March 2006 07:26
> To: Richard Ishida; GEO
> Subject: RE: New article for REVIEW: Working with composite messages
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> Some small comments: An example is not consistent ("The ... 
> has been enabled." vs. "The ... has been disabled.").

Fixed.

> 
> "... improve message consistency, and optimize memory.": I'd 
> put at least a 'may' before "optimize memory". This is way 
> less of an issue than a few years ago.

Well, not for mobile devices, unfortunately.

> 
> " If the alternative string stapler options were used at 
> runtime, the word has would be incorrect": No need to use 
> conditional; the example as shown beforehand suggests that 
> "stapler options" is actually being used.

Fixed.


> 
> "However, since there is now only a single string containing 
> the word has, it cannot be translated in more than one way.": 
> Difficult to understand:
> no need to translate, because the problem exists already in English.
> This problem is reinforced by the start of the next 
> paragraph, which brings up other languages, and therefore 
> suggests that the sentence in question is really only about 
> English. It seems that in these two paragraphs, two different 
> issues (the problem already being there in English, and the 
> problem of translation) have been mixed too much. I suggest 
> cleaning things up by first only talking about English, and 
> then talking about other languages, translations,...

Fixed. 

> 
> As for the question below, I clearly think 'topic' is better 
> than 'subject', but I'm not happy with 'predicate' as well as 
> with 'comment'. Unfortunately, I don't have a better suggestion (yet).

Ok.

Thanks !
RI

> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
> At 02:43 06/03/25, Richard Ishida wrote:
>  >
>  >Folks,
>  >
>  >I was about to write this note to John Cowan, but began 
> having doubts.
>  >Topic-comment doesn't sound too bad today, for some reason. 
>  Let's just do a  >sense check.  Who prefers 
> subject-predicate, and who prefers topic-comment?
>  >
>  >http://www.w3.org/International/articles/composite-messages/
>  >
>  >I'm afraid to say, I'm leaning on the topic-comment side at 
> the moment. I do  >like 'topic', and I've always worried a 
> little about 'predicate' - may sound  >too technical for some.
>  >
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 16:33:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:41 GMT