W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2005

Minutes 2005-06-22: ITS teleconference

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:03:31 +0200
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050622160350.8ADF617351B@postfix3-1.free.fr>

Minutes 2005-06-22: ITS teleconference


- TF: Tim Foster (Sun)
- RI: Richard Ishida (W3C)
- MI: Masaki Itagaki (Invited Expert)
- CL: Christian Lieske (SAP)
- FS: Felix Sasaki (W3C)
- YS: Yves Savourel (ENLASO)
- AZ: Andrzej Zydron (Invited Expert)


- DS: Diane Stoick (Boeing)




1. RI to ask to the appropriate W3C contact how to handle feedback from non-WG-members.
No done yet --> Next teleconference.

2. RI to contact person for Atom.
Not done yet --> Next teleconference.

3. YS to move the "Usage Scenario: Content Authoring" item to Working Draft state.
Done: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqTechWriter>

4. MI to clean up the comments as much as possible in "Cultural Aspects of the Content".
Done: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqCulturalAspects>
This requirement will be moved to Working Draft if no more comments are added by next meeting.

5. YS to update the text to reflect a mention to Schematron for the document instance level.
Done: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0506ReqConstraints>
YS to clean up the last comments.

6. All to post any feedback on FS draft paper to the public list.
Latest version: <http://www.w3.org/International/2005/05/EML2005sasa0411.html>
FS gave a brief overview of the paper main topics. This is illustrated in the Figure 3 of the paper. He gave an example of
implementation for each of the arrow. For example: Namespace sectioning using DSDL, schema annotation for <span>-like element,
pipeline language for instance processing, etc.
CL noted that we are often talking about processing expectations in ITS (like for the unique ID requirement). FS agreed. YS asked if
a classification of the requirement would help. FS agreed. We noted that some requirements may belong to different classes at the
same time.
The paper is due Friday.
All to see if they can send comments to FS by that time (YS has promised he would).
MI wondered if it was ITS goal to come up with the implementation solutions for the requirements. FS noted that we mostly set the
requirements, and offer possible solutions using existing mechanisms.

7. YS to implement the additional note on "Indicator of Translatability"
Done: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505Translatability>

8. AZ to change the title on "Requirements for Word Count" to reflect the changes to 'Metrics'.
Done: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0505WordCount>

9. YS to update the main index page to reflect change it in the main Index for the "Requirements for Word Count" re-titling.
Done: http://www.w3.org/International/its/#Work


- We discussed "Span-like Element"
TF noted that mapping could be only useful for element that real match the same concept (like <do-not-translate>, but things like
<code> may be to vague.
YS noted that we may point to the "Purpose specification/mapping".
TF to clean up the requirement.

- We discussed - "Localization Notes"
CL wondered if we should have a new section on "processing expectations". FS noted that we might want this as a stand-alone section
the requirements could refer to. 
MI wondered the relationship between localization notes and span-like. YS said he didn't think span-like elements would be used to
insert notes within content.


- We discussed the next face-to-face meeting. It's official: The next face-to-face meeting will be hosted by the ERCIM at
Sophia/Antipolis (near Nice, France) from [Mon-Sep-19 to Wed-Sep-21] (3 days). FS and YS to coordinate for the information to post.
All to send FS and YS an email saying whether they assume they will be able to make it and if possible the dates they will arrive
and leave. More info and discussion later.

- CL asked if YS could post a note to the XLIFF-TC list to point out the main page of the requirements.
YS to do that.

- Next teleconference is Wednesday Jun-29 at 14:00 UTC, IRC: #i18n.
(AZ and DS have send their apologies for that one).


01. RI to ask to the appropriate W3C contact how to handle feedback from non-WG-members.

02. RI to contact person for Atom.

03. YS to clean up "Indicator of constraints"

04. YS to send comments to FS on the draft paper (before Friday Tokyo time).

05. AZ to address comments on the "Requirement for Metrics"

06. TF to clean up "Span-like element"

07. CL to try to add a parts about processing requirements for the "Localization Notes"

08. All to notify FS and YS about face-to-face meeting attendance ("yes", "not sure yet but probably", "not sure yet and it doesn't
look good", "won't be able") with dates if possible.

Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 16:03:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:04 UTC