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

Re: Issue of locInfoType - To keep or not

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:03:31 +0900
Message-ID: <442015C3.9020201@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: 'Yves Savourel' <yves@opentag.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Richard Ishida wrote:
> I would also prefer to remove the locInfoType attribute, but there is a
> third solution that i prefer.

Hi Richard,

at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0189.html
, Yves listed this topic as one "to be voted on" at the ITS call tomorrow.

Would you be fine about voting about removing locInfoType separately
from your proposal? So that we are able to move forward fast.

Cheers,

Felix


>  
> In addition to the locInfo data category have a locAlert data category. 
> I think relying on people to add text to a note to distinguish these two
> types of localization note will lead to problems - not least if the
> notes are written in another language (such as Russian). 
>  
> I also think we need to be careful about changing the requirements to
> fit implementation snags. 
>  
> RI
>  
> 
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
> 
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
> 
>  
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* public-i18n-its-request@w3.org
>     [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Yves Savourel
>     *Sent:* 16 March 2006 06:13
>     *To:* public-i18n-its@w3.org
>     *Subject:* Issue of locInfoType - To keep or not
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     There is an item listed in the Mandelieu proposals that I'd like to
>     dispose of at the next teleconference. It's not a crucial one but it
>     affect the markup itself, so we need to address it.
> 
>     We have currently an optional attribute locInfoType with the values
>     "alert|description" (and no default set for now).
> 
>     The question is shall we keep it or not?
> 
>     Advantages to keep it:
> 
>     - Allows to make a distinction between different types of loc info.
> 
>     Drawbacks:
> 
>     - make things a bit more verbose, and add more things to do at the
>     implementation.
>     - we would need to decide where it fits in the conformance (any
>     specific processing expectation)
>     - if we keep it we need to have a default value for it (alert or
>     description?)
> 
>     My comments:
> 
>     Overall I don't see much benefits into having it. From an
>     implementation viewpoint (at least from my prospective) this will
>     translate into a note that will have a 'ALERT' word in front of the
>     note, or nothing. That's it.
> 
>     If we keep it I think the default value should be 'description'.
> 
>     I would be for removing @locInfoType simply because it doesn't seem
>     to bring much and that would make ITS a tad lighter. But it's not at
>     all a strong opinion and I'll go with the pack on this one.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     -yves
> 
> 



Received on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:03:41 UTC

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