[1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ i18n ITS WG 19 Oct 2005 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0033.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-irc Attendees Present Andrzej, Christian, Damian, Felix, Goutam, Sebastian, Yves Regrets Diane, Richard Chair Yves Scribe Felix Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Welcome a new member! 2. [6]action item 3. [7]discussions on Scoping 4. [8]change the requirement document 5. [9]Note on extensibility 6. [10]about definitions 7. [11]other business * [12]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________ Welcome a new member! YS: Damian, please tell us about you. DA: Hi everybody ... I will replace Tim Foster ... I worked at Sun for 5-6 year in l10n area ... I am the lead of Sun l10n ??? desktop ... currently I'm working on openoffice action item ACTION: FS to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into ODD (DONE) [recorded in [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action01] ACTION: FS to summarize the discussion of the scope wiki, look at root elements with / without children, and if there are no more comments, to put it into ODD. (DONE) [recorded in [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action02] ACTION: Put extensibility in the WD in the way discussed in last teleconference. (PENDING) [recorded in [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action03] ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion) (PENDING) [recorded in [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action04] ACTION: SR to put a comment on Nested element req <[17]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements>. (PENDING) [recorded in [18]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action05] [17] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements%3E. SR: did the action item on writing odd2xmlspec ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template. (PENDING) [recorded in [19]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action06] discussions on Scoping [20]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping [20] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping YS: I thougth it was well done ... we get a better idea of how it will work ... I had some comments, but you answered that in a mail ... CL had some comments as well CL: I saw one of my comments generated some questions ... this summary indicates the progress we are making ... in a comment, I had a reference to xsl-fo ... I meant that computation of scoping is s.t. different ... xsl has s.t. explicit how a value should be computed a maybe useful xml schema data type: Hi everybody SR: this might be an unhealthy route to go SR: some users might have other use cases AZ: there is an error in the attribute ??? in the WD, I will fix that SR: if you want to check the XPath ... you could also use schematron, and go down the NDVL route ... maybe your example is a better example in the non-normative part of the spec FS: that is a good idea ... "Summary of the scope requirement" is what we are talking about YS: our solution would be translate "yes" or "no" ... all the examples we used so far are a single set of values ... but we have not touched the case of constraints FS: we could express that with the XLink way, using attributes YS: as for ruby, we don't define ruby ourselves ... why not defining an enclosing ruby tag? FS: this is because of text in attributes ... but if this solution does not work, people who read the wd will tell us ACTION: FS to produce an odd for the scoping element, with the complete structure of the wd [recorded in [21]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action07] SR: one point is whether you want to mandate XPath 2.0? FS: sorry, XPath 1.0 is feasible as well change the requirement document YS: FS had the concern to discuss solution in the req document FS: this is my mail: [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0 037.html ... I can do the changes in the req document fast [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0037.html YS: I can try to help you with that fast, but I will be gone most of next week and the end of this week ... let's talk about that offline Note on extensibility YS: we agreed that extensibility should not be tackeled right now, and that we would put that into the wd ACTION: FS to put as many as possible requirements into the tag set working draft [recorded in [23]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action08] YS: other comments on this topic? about definitions YS: we had some feedback, but we did not follow up with that very well ... about i18n, l10n, and so on. ... we had some comments from Mark Davis and Adisson Phillips ... is there s.t. we could use in our documents? [24]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions [24] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions FS: currently discussed between the WGs, but no solution so far YS: do we have to refer to the req document from the spec document? FS: might be useful, but is not mandatory other business YS: the f2f meeting, is the 6-7-8 of December [25]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions [25] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions YS: will be somewhere near Oxford logistics page: [26]http://www.w3.org/International/its/ftf-200512-Didcot.html [26] http://www.w3.org/International/its/ftf-200512-Didcot.html YS: we have to check hotels ... The Upper Reaches, Abingdon ... that is our first choice, cf. [27]http://www.superbreak.com/home.cfm?GroupID=4003&content=hotel ... lunch is not provided ... we need the list of people who will come ... I'll try to start an agenda soon ... any other business? [27] http://www.superbreak.com/home.cfm?GroupID=4003&content=hotel regrets for next week: YS FS will chair Damian: I will tell you next week if I can participate in the f2f Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: FS to produce an odd for the scoping element, with the complete structure of the wd [recorded in [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action07] [NEW] ACTION: FS to put as many as possible requirements into the tag set working draft [recorded in [29]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action08] [PENDING] ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion) [recorded in [30]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action04] [PENDING] ACTION: Put extensibility in the WD in the way discussed in last teleconference. [recorded in [31]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action03] [PENDING] ACTION: SR to put a comment on Nested element req <http://esw.w 3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements>. [recorded in [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action05] [PENDING] ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template. [recorded in [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action06] [DONE] ACTION: FS to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into ODD [recorded in [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action01] [DONE] ACTION: FS to summarize the discussion of the scope wiki, look at root elements with / without children, and if there are no more comments, to put it into ODD. [recorded in [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action02] [End of minutes] _________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [36]scribe.perl version 1.127 ([37]CVS log) $Date: 2005/10/19 15:09:11 $ [36] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [37] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/