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

Face-to-Face Meeting Summary

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:53:34 +0200
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050926055410.6782725765@smtp2-g19.free.fr>

Hi everyone,

First, a big thanks for Felix for preparing the meeting and to Richard for ferrying everyone around. A special thanks also to Felix
and Sebastian to tolled after hours to prepare some examples between the Monday and Tuesday sessions.

The minutes are available here:
<http://www.w3.org/2005/09/19-i18n-minutes.html> (Monday)
<http://www.w3.org/2005/09/20-i18nts-minutes.html> (Tuesday)
<http://www.w3.org/2005/09/21-i18nts-minutes.html> (Wednesday)

And the main outputs of the meeting are the following:

1- Felix and Christian will co-edit the "Specification" document. Their first task will be to use TEI's ODD and its automation tools
to prepare the specifications for the translatability indicator and the ruby notation. We'll try to publish this as a First Draft as
soon as possible.

2- After a lot of discussions we identified several locations where ITS information could be used:
- externally
- in the elements defining the data categories in a schema
- in a header "at the top" of a document instance
- within a document at the element level

3- We made the following decisions for the translatability indicator:
- by default element content is translatable, attribute values are not.
- a 'translate' attribute with a value 'yes' or 'no' is used to overwrite these defaults
	- in the elements defining the data categories in a schema
	- within a document at the element level
We have not defined any mechanism yet for specifying 'translate' externally or in a header (i.e. the "its info block").
- a 'translate-options' (or 'translate-extension') for additional values. We had an unresolved discussion about whether such
attribute is needed or not as compared to the constraints implementation.

4- Yves and Diane will co-edit the "Techniques" (guidelines) document.

5- We will now focus our discussions on the solutions while keeping up the requirements.

=== Action Items

1- FS and YS to check for overlap and differences and between translation requirements implementation and the ruby requirements

2- CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation.

3- Editors to add the constraints requirements to the scope sensitive requirements.

4- FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on a wiki on xml:lang for the i18n core WG)

5- Editors to have a note in the document about scope in general (in a general section) and about the fact the scope has to be
applied to translatability

6- FS to use ODD to specify Ruby implementation

7- SR to help FS and CL to set up ODD processing environment

9- To have "yes" or "no" in the Working Draft as values of translation, and add a note about the possibility of Boolean values

10- YS to list possible constraints and values for them.

11- CL and FS to decide who will edit the mapping section of the ITS specification Working Draft

12- FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under development

13- FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft

14- YS to post message about meeting f2f Dec-14 to 16 (noon).

15- GS to continue work on the document he started to see if we should put that into the guidelines, including the aspect of
language / dialect identification

16- RI to check for hosting the f2f near Oxford (December, 14-16 (noon))

17- SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects of the TEI

18- SR to put a comment on http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki

19- To contact Deborah A. Lapeyre (DITA committee) about the relation between its / DITA

20- YS as the initial editor for the ITS guidelines, DS helping

Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 05:54:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:05 UTC