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

Re: Terminology to be used with ITS markup (II)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:56:56 +0900
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3t6g6h6x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

Hi Christian,

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:44:36 +0900, Lieske, Christian  
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> While working on the task to write an introduction to selection
> (formerly know as "scoping") I made a general observation: from
> my understanding we might benefit from one or two changes related
> to the terminology we use.
>
> Let's start with the following question:
>
> 	What is ITS markup meant to do?

just one remark here: ITS markup can be used without selection, and that  
seems to be a quite commen use case. So I don't know if this is the right  
question for the section on selection.

>
>> From my understanding, the ITS markup captures information related
> to i18n or l10n. Following this line of thought, sth. like
>
> 	<body its:translate="no" translateSelector="./p">
>
> can be analyzed two-fold, namely either as markup or as information
> captured by ITS markup.
>
> With respect to the view "this is ITS markup", we have to dive down
> a bit. To me, it seems appropriate to destinguish:
>
> 	A. Data category identifier: "its:translate"
> 	B. Data category value: "no"
> 	C. Data category selector: "translateSelector"
>
> The view "this is ITS information" could be captured by prose like the
> following:
>
> 	The ITS markup 'its:translate="no"' captures the information
> that
> 	something should not be translated.
>
> I wonder if it is just me who senses a need to capture the two possible
> views
> (markup vs. information).

to make a difference between markup versus information is fine. But I  
don't see the real difference between information and data category here,  
since you could say also markup versus data category. In any case, I would  
strongly disagree with your differentiation A., B. and C. above, since  
this looks like a semi-formalization of data categories we don't have. We  
can discuss that, but not while creating a summary :) . But if you want to  
discuss it: what would be A., B. C. for the ruby data category?

Regards, Felix.

>
>> From my understanding, we would benefit from a distinction (which could
> be captured by using two different terms to talk about it), and an
> accompanying
> set of terms to talk about the three possible parts of ITS markup (see
> above).
> Of course, I would be in favour of following terminology established by
> other
> groups (however, so far I have not been able to research into this).
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 14:57:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:06 UTC