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

i18n ITS (edit) minutes 2006-02-17

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:41:46 +0900
Message-ID: <43F9569A.4060105@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Hi all,

The minutes of our "editors call" are at
and as text below.

I would suggest: If you have anything about "word smithing": bring it up
during the week via mail and suggest it for the editor's call. We will
see if we will gather enough for the call.




      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                     i18n ITS working group (edit)

17 Feb 2006



   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-irc


          Christian, Diane, Felix, Yves




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2881
         2. [6]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2882
         3. [7]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2883
         4. [8]techniques document
         5. [9]general: this meeting
     * [10]Summary of Action Items


     [11] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2881

   Christian: these three bugs are related to feedback from Felix
   ... concerning changes to the latest draft



   Christian: this bug is related to the abstract
   ... Felix said he liked the change
   ... but he proposed to have a discussion on this on the group
   ... the rewording says that ITS tagset has to do with quality and
   cost efficiency

   Yves: I looked at it and did not see any problem


     [13] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/

   <scribe> .. new standard says that we are talking about a standard

   ... I am not sure if this is o.k.
   ... I changed the references to new and existing schemas and

   Yves: the only comment I have:
   ... we have to make sure that we have to separate the paragraph
   about feedback

   Felix: current abstract is very short, but if we take the longer
   version, to have this separate is a good idea

   Diane: it does not necessarily need the part "one hand ..."
   ... so take out "one one hand"
   ... instead of "on the other hand", say "in addition"

   Yves: my concern with "high quality" etc.
   ... sounds like marketing
   ... they are buzzwords

   Christian: the point to me was
   ... a lot of W3C work is related to i18n and l10n

   Yves: one aspect is the commonality we are trying to have
   ... with ITS across the different XML standards

   Christian: so how about:
   ... this document standardizes ...
   ... internationalization and localization of XML document and

   Yves: sounds good

   <scribe> ACTION: editors to integrate abstract changes into odd
   [recorded in


     [15] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2882

   Yves: section 1.1., see

     [16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/#d2e154

   Christian: this making available in additional languages
   ... this is only one facet of localization
   ... I made a change of the first paragraph to "made available in
   additional languages or adapted

   with regard to other cultural aspects."

   christian: the second change talkes about internationalization
   ... which says that it is up-front work for localization

   Diane: the only thing I see is
   ... instead of "so-called source language"
   ... have "source language"

   Yves: I like the word "feasibility"
   ... because it expresses that you often cannot localize, if there is
   no proper internationlization before

   <chriLi> Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency requires up-front
   work before localization starts

   Yves: up-front seems to be redundant

   <chriLi> Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency require work
   before localization starts

   Yves: the rest would be o.k.

   Diane: " Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency require work
   before localization starts"

   Yves: I still don't see the big difference to the existing paragraph
   ... is there an extra concept that we are adding or removing?


     [17] http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html

   keep it like:

   [[[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. For a detailed explanation of the terms
   "localization" and "internationalization", see [l10n i18n].]]]

   Yves: but we did change s.t on the first paragraph

   <scribe> ACTION: editors to make changes in sec. 1.1 [recorded in


     [19] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2883

   <YvesS> original = [[The data categories and their implementation as
   a schema does not address document-external mechanisms or data
   formats for describing localization-relevant information over and
   above what is appropriate for inclusion in the format itself. Such
   mechanisms and data formats, also sometimes called XML Localization
   Properties, are out of the scope of this document. However, this
   document specifies a methodology how localization properties and
   information a

   <YvesS> ]]

   Christian: I found this rather abstract
   ... I wondered: what does it mean: what is approriate for inclusion
   in the format?
   ... IMO, what we don't do
   ... we don't define a general format
   ... but we define information which can be used for such a format

   Yves: I agree with Christian here

   Felix: "possibly may be implemented by the

   framework put forth in this standard.


   <chriLi> possibly may be at least partically implemented by the
   framework put forth in this standard

   Diane: take however and possibly out

   Felix: I would propose: "These mechanisms ...
   ... may be implemented based on parts of the framework put forth in
   this standard"

   Diane: it sounds right to me

   Yves: I think Christian was describing a different idea, but now we
   have both ideas

techniques document

   <YvesS> [20]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601Techniques

     [20] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601Techniques

   <scribe> ACTION: editors to change out of scope section [recorded in

   Yves: I described the techniques from 2 different viewpoints
   ... 1: schema developers
   ... 2: authors
   ... it makes things clearer for the user
   ... I tried to suggest pointers to ITS markup in the tagset document
   ... there is not the complete list of requirements here yet

   Christian: are we lacking one group of persons?
   ... what are developers?

   Felix: the charter talks about schema and specification developers

   Christian: the document rules we have now:
   ... they are a tool to organize workflows
   ... e.g. saying "this bit of content goes into localization"
   ... should that be addressed?
   ... as for content authors:
   ... maybe also translators would benefit from the techniques
   ... they may need to specify the language of the content

   Yves: the translator *is* a content author

   Felix: so make clear that "content author" encompasses translator

   Diane: who is the guy who is between the author and translator?

   yves: e.g. the guy who defines the rule set
   ... but we want to avoid such tasks, right?

   Felix: the tagset document might be useful for engineers

   Yves: here we are talking about techniques
   ... if you have a way to override translatability information


     [22] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechTransAuth

   Yves: this is an example of how to use ITS tagset

   Christian: I see an overlap between techniques and ITS tagset
   ... in the specification, we have a non-normative modularization in
   certain schemas
   ... if we would say "use this module in your own schema"
   ... this would be a different way of guidance

   <YvesS> [23]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev

     [23] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev

   Christian: we could integrate xml:lang in to ITS , see

     [24] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev

   Yves: the example of xml:lang is a good one
   ... I am wondering if it should be in the spec, or in the guidelines

   Felix: we could take examples out of the ITS tagset document, and
   see what we reuse for the techniques document

   Yves: it would be bad if we would take all examples out of the
   tagset document
   ... I'll try to take into account "translator" as part of the
   "content author"
   ... I don't know of the other guy
   ... that is the work we do here
   ... we get raw documents, and try to make them work for the

general: this meeting

   yves: this meeting is discussion
   ... if we do not have anything on the techniques, that is not so
   bad, but we need to make progress on the tagset document

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: editors to change out of scope section [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: editors to integrate abstract changes into odd
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: editors to make changes in sec. 1.1 [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([29]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/02/20 05:36:51 $

     [28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 05:41:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:08 UTC