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

Re: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext strings? (eg. different languages/scripts)

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:41:28 +0000
Message-ID: <499094F8.20301@philarcher.org>
To: ysavourel@translate.com
CC: 'Felix Sasaki' <fsasaki@w3.org>, public-powderwg@w3.org, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>

Thanks very much, Yves.

Felix had pointed out the error in the ITS file [1] - which I've now 
corrected - and thank you for spotting the error in the example. Just 
when I was beginning to think we really had found all the typos...

Done now.

Thanks again


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Feb/0005.html

Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>> ...I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is
>> temporarily at [2] as well
> I've looked at http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml
> There is a selector="//p:powder" where the prefix "p" is not mapped to any namespace URI.
> By the way, while looking a little below http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization
> I've notice that Example 3-1 had a <wdrs:describedby> element where "wdrs" was not decaled either.
> -ys
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil
>> Archer
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:35 AM
>> To: Felix Sasaki
>> Cc: public-powderwg@w3.org; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Dan Brickley
>> Subject: Re: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext
>> strings? (eg. different languages/scripts)
>> Thanks Felix,
>> I think I see a way forward then. As long we make it clear that any
>> linguistic processing is to be done independently of POWDER, and that
>> any ITS tags are lost in the transformation from POWDER to POWDER -S
>> (i.e. it's turned into RDF/OWL) then we should be OK.
>> To this end I've added an extra couple of lines, visible temporarily at
>> [1]. I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is
>> temporarily at [2] as well (I've just edited the one Yves sent).
>> OK?
>> Cheers
>> Phil.
>> [1] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization
>> [2] http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml
>> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>> Hello Phil, all,
>>> Phil Archer さんは書きました:
>>>> Yves, Dan,
>>>> Over the last week or so I've been working through all the comments
>>>> we've received (again, double checking everything before we go to PR)
>>>> and looked again at those you sent [1, 2], both of which relate to
>>>> language/translation issues. I realised that there was more to do...
>>>> Initial lack of support for xml:lang was an omission. I've now
>>>> implemented support for it in the relevant elements in the POWDER
>>>> Processor I've been working on [3] and it's already supported in the
>>>> other tools we have.
>>>> For example [4] shows you the output of a processor given a POWDER doc
>>>> that makes it very plain that anything on example.com or example.org
>>>> is red in multiple languages.
>>>> I've also amended the relevant documentation to make it clear that
>>>> xml:lang attributes are appropriate for use on the displaytext,
>>>> comment and label elements. See the change log at [5] for pointers to
>>>> the relevant text.
>>>> Although xml:lang attributes may be added to tag elements, we don't
>>>> recommend it for the reasons shown in the new section on localisation.
>>>> Regretfully, it does not appear to be possible to include the ITS tag
>>>> set. This is because although POWDER is encoded in XML, it transports
>>>> RDF and can be transformed into RDF/OWL. Therefore, although it looks
>>>> like XML, one really has to think of POWDER as RDF which interprets
>>>> XML attributes as datatype properties. This means that they can only
>>>> appear in node elements and things like its:translate do not have the
>>>> desired semantics within POWDER.
>>>> Therefore, unless there is a way to use ITS with RDF, we can't
>>>> integrate it as Yves has suggested.
>>> The idea of ITS is to be available for localization and
>>> internationalization of XML formats. Some specifications, like Powder,
>>> define XML only as one serialization for their data model. That
>>> restricts the possibilities for ITS, but IMO it does not make them
>>> impossible. The important bit here is that ITS-processing is independent
>>> of Powder processing. As Yves said:
>>> "The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to
>>> localize or *preform* some linguistic-related tasks on the
>>> document. "
>>> So one could say "If a user needs to localize Powder documents, ITS
>>> provides a means to achieve this within the XML serialization of Powder".
>>> I agree that currently there is no way to use ITS within RDF on the data
>>> model, serialization-independent level of RDF, and that this would be
>>> desireable, though probably hard to achieve in a timely fashion.
>>> Nevertheless I am not aware of any other means to express localization
>>> requirements on the data model level of RDF. Hence, ITS would solve the
>>> problem at least for one serialization.
>>> Regards,
>>> Felix
>>>> If you have any further comments, or if you disagree with our action
>>>> here, do please let us know.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Phil.
>>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0046.html
>>>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Jan/0020.html
>>>> [3] http://i-sieve.com/cgi-bin/processor.cgi
>>>> [4] http://tinyurl.com/c62tsn
>>>> [5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090203-diff.html#sincelc1
>>>> Yves Savourel wrote:
>>>>> Hi Phil,
>>>>>> OK, now I'm being a little lazy - because I'm trying to expedite
>>>>>> this ASAP and I admit to only having seen the ITS doc for the first
>>>>>> time this afternoon. You've kindly sent us an ITS rules file - is
>>>>>> the idea that every POWDER doc should link to this? Or at least,
>>>>>> every POWDER doc that includes localised tags? Or should we embed
>>>>>> the rules in the schema?
>>>>> The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to
>>>>> localize or preform some linguistic-related tasks on the
>>>>> document.
>>>>> It is certainly not necessary to have the rules in every document
>>>>> instance.
>>>>> Including them in the schema could be a good way to make sure it's
>>>>> readily accessible.
>>>>> Or it could be a separate document (with a link to it in the spec).
>>>>> From the view point of the ITS processor it doesn't really
>>>>> matter.
>>>>> -yves
>> --
>> Phil Archer
>> w. http://philarcher.org/

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 20:42:11 UTC

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