W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Change proposals: Christian's "introduction" section

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 19:16:16 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "'Lieske, Christian'" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001c01c659e0$df07bb10$0300a8c0@Breizh>

Hi Christian, Felix,

Here are some comments:

> <item>schema developers who work with an existing schema:<p>This type
> of user will be working with schemassuch as DocBook, DITA, or perhaps
> an in-house schema.</p>

---1: "schemassuch" is missing a space.

---2: I would replace "an in-house schema" by "a proprietary schema" (otherwise 'in-house' might imply that the other schemas are
"out-house" schemas :)

> The ITS Working Group has sought input from
> people developing widely used formats such as the ones mentioned,
> and the specification provides examples of how those specific formats
> could be adapted to support ITS.

---3: Since we are planning on having the "modularizations" as a separate note, maybe the end of the paragraph above could be
tuned-up to refect that?

> <item>vendors of content-related tools:<p>This 
> type of users encompasses

---4: "vendors of content-related tools" sounds strange to me. Maybe just "tools vendors"? (not sure though).

> <item>knowledge workers:<p>This type of users comprises 
> authors, translators and other types of content authors.

---5: "knowledge workers" also sounds strange to me. But I can't find an alternate proposal.

> The markup proposed in this specification
> may be used by them to mark up specific bits of content. However,
> the burden of inserting markup can sometimes be removed from content
> authors by relating the ITS information to relevant bits of content
> in a more global manner.

---6: I think we should be more blunt here. Some thing like: "However, the burden of inserting markup should be removed as much as
possible from content authors..."

> <item>abstract in the data category descriptions</item>
> <item>concrete in the ITS schemas</item>

---7: maybe "abstractly, in the data category descriptions"
And "concretely, in the ..." (not sure...)

> <p>The ITS specification proposes several mechanisms for 
> supporting worldwide use and effective localization of content.
> We will explore them below. For the purpose of illustration, 
> we will answer the question, how ITS can indicate that certain 
> parts of content should or should not be translated.</p>

---8: Maybe shorter: "The ITS specification proposes several mechanisms. To illustrate them "

> <p>A content author or information architect uses markup at the top
> of the document to identify a particular type of element or context
> in which the content should not be translated.</p>

---9: Is the example below the paragraph above correct? It's a bit hard to read with the codes, but I see its:translate="yes" and
the text says "should not be translated".

> A processor may inject markup at the top of the document which
> links to ITS information outside of the document.</p>

---10: In the example below the text above, didn't we dediced on a simple attribute in <its:rules> rather a <its:rulesLink>? I can't
recall for sure. If so the example need to be fixed.

> <p>From the viewpoints of feasibility, cost, and efficiency, 
> it is important that the original material should be suitable 
> for localization. This is achieved by appropriate design and 
> development, and the corresponding process is referred to as 
> internationalization.

---11: Just an observation. To some degree the text above make it sounds like that internationalization is limited to allow
localization. Maybe some small rewording may inject the aspect of allowing content in any language (maybe after this draft is done)

> <item>as for XML <hi>documentss</hi>, useable 

---12: "documentss" should be "documents"

> <emph>No dedicated extensibility</emph>: It may be useful or
> necessary to extend the set of information
> available for internationalization or localization purposes beyond
> what is provided by ITS.

---13: I would drop "or localization", ITS is about internationalization, it addresses localization only through localizability
which is part of internationalization.

I would even simplify it to: "It may be useful or necessary to extend the set of information provided by ITS."

> <head>Development of this Specification</head>

---14: I vaguely recall a comment (Felix's maybe?) saying this sub-section may be best suited for a spot somewhere at the end of the
document (appendix?). The reader probably does not care much about how the spec was written. If we could keep his/her attention to
ITS itself maybe better?

That's all I have for now.
Received on Friday, 7 April 2006 01:23:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC