W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Translation control in HTML5

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 06:46:50 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "'Yves Savourel'" <ysavourel@translate.com>, <ian@hixie.ch>, <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002a01c9c4da$bd9a2400$38ce6c00$@com>
While "i18nrules" may not quite be completely exact, I suppose it does reflect "Internationalization tag set" well enough. I would
be fine with that.






From: public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 4:21 AM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: Henri Sivonen; Yves Savourel; ian@hixie.ch; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Translation control in HTML5



2009/4/24 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Felix Sasaki wrote:

   Also, the relation itself should be generic enough to be used with
   different formats, ITS being just one of them; thus I'd call it
   something like "translationrules".

Here I would disagree, since ITS rules may have other purposes than translation, see the table at
which are still relevant for localization scenarios.



So how about "i18nrules" then?

Would be fine by me, though others might think it is important to encompass "localization" and "internationalization" in the name.


BR, Julian

Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 22:00:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:27 UTC