- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:29:21 +0900
- To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44217B61.6020400@w3.org>
Hi,
The minutes of today's call are at
http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html
and below as text.
Cheers,
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
i18n ITS working group
22 Mar 2006
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0189.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-irc
Attendees
Present
Christian, Diane, Felix, Goutam, Richard, Yves
Regrets
Andrzej, Sebastian
Chair
Yves
Scribe
Felix
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Proposal of not having mapping for translate and dir
2. [6]New precedence rule (if we have mapping)
3. [7]Shall we keep locInfoType of not?
4. [8]"Possible conflicts between schemas and instances"
5. [9]other action items
6. [10]XTech
7. [11]discussions to be decided at next meeting
8. [12]relationship DITA versus XLIFF
9. [13]DITA
10. [14]face-to-face
11. [15]next meeting - time difference
12. [16]editor's call
* [17]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Proposal of not having mapping for translate and dir
<YvesS>
[18]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
329.html
[18]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0329.html
Yves: we had some consensus that what we are discribing was not
mapping, but passing values
... we did not need that mechanism from that
Diane: so we won't provide any mapping?
Yves: no, the proposal is to break down mapping in two things
... what the currently called "mapping" in the mandelieu proposal
... needs a different name like "passTrough"
... this would not apply to translatability or directionality
Christian: what would we have from the individual data categories so
far?
Felix: today we need only to decide if we want to have "passTrough"
for these two data categories
Yves: "passTrough" is necessary for localization information which
is already in the document
... or term reference which needs to be passed trough
... for translatability, we don't need such mechanism
... same thing for directionality
... so the proposal today is: call "xxxMap" attributes different,
e.g. "xxxPassTrough"
... and not to have these attributes for translatability and
directionality
Christian: If we don't need it, let's get rid of it
... we would need to change the section on ITS concepts
Diane: I agree with Christian
Yves: Sebastian is in agreement as well
... let's make the decision to drop "xxxMap" for translatability and
directionality
New precedence rule (if we have mapping)
Yves: this is refused for now, since we don't have mapping anymore
Shall we keep locInfoType of not?
<YvesS>
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
332.html
[19]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0332.html
Yves: we had some consensus that we don't need the attribute
... Richard proposed to have a new data category about "alert"
... "locInfo" as one category, "locAlert" as another one
<chriLi> locInfoAlert and locInfoDescription?
Richard: that would enable us to keep the two different types of
notes
Yves: as we discussed this, I thought we would get rid of the
distinction
... I can see the need for the distinction in some cases
Felix: we would need a more fine grained distinction
Richard: if you want to have s.t. translated especially, you would
use the "alert" variant
Yves: if you create a new data category, you'd have to use the
"passTrough" functionality two times
... so we need to keep the distinction, that is consensus
... having just an attribute for the distinction is better
... for the record: we keep locInfoType, and see how it goes
Diane: would you make a default?
Yves: yes, locally we default would be "description"
... globally, the locInfoType would be a mandatory attribute
... consensus for that
... maybe we put in the spec as an editor note that there is the
discussion of a different notation
<YvesS>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
332.html
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0332.html
"Possible conflicts between schemas and instances"
<YvesS> [21]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2923
[21] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2923
Yves: any comments on Felix description?
... we are able to do what Felix described, since we dropped the
schemaRule description
christian: we need this linking mechanism
Yves: do we have a consensus to close eric's bug?
... yes
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to enter proposal for the linking mechanism
into bugzilla [recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
other action items
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to start the discussion on not having mapping
for the translatability and dir (DONE) [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
how to use its:locInfoRef (PENDING) [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
felix: I will put that into the next draft
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
conformance for Ruby (PENDING) [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]
felix: I will ask Richard for a week then he has time to work on
this
<scribe> ACTION: put a note on the proposal for grouping data
categories in next working draft (PENDING) [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]
Felix: based on a proposal from Sebastian
<scribe> ACTION: All to read and comment on RI's notes (DROPPED)
[recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]
<scribe> ACTION: all to work on informal description of ITS,
including RI's notes [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]
<scribe> ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
conformance discussion in the spec. (ONGOING) [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: Tag set editors to integrate discussion result
about bugs 2881,2,3 (PENDING) [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action09]
<scribe> ACTION: Yves to work on XHTML + ITS modularization (DONE)
[recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action10]
<YvesS>
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
344.html
[32]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0344.html
<YvesS>
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/a
tt-0344/XHTML_Modularization.html
[33]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/att-0344/XHTML_Modularization.html
Christian: two comments:
... Richard said many people don't use dt
... I said, if we come up with a standard modularization, we should
only consider what people should be doing
... my other comment was:
... if we look at the data category for terminology, the host
vocabulary has maybe not a single container
... e.g. a term in <dt> elements, versus terms in special attributes
<t> elements
... the question was if there is a mechanism "both are terms in the
sense of ITS"
Yves: ITS allows that, we just would have two rules instead of one
... as for the termRule element, did we decide to get rid of the
term="yes" attribute?
Felix: yes, I think we decided that
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to add the xhtml section to the spec
[recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action11]
Felix: I propose to have these sections (XHTML, xmlspec, TEI) in
separate documents
Yves: need to address XHTML 2.0?
Felix: no
XTech
Felix: Sebastian said he will write s.t. about the ODD format
... the deadline is on April 15
Christian: I could take introductory sections from the updated spec
Felix: that sounds good. we should take RI's stuff also into account
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech [recorded
in [35]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action12]
discussions to be decided at next meeting
Yves: [36]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000 on
extensiblity
... then: renaming things: "documentRules" versus "rules", and
renaming of "pass trough like" attributes (e.g. "xxxPointer")
... third topic:
[37]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924 (why a closed
list of schema languages?)
[36] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000
[37] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924
Felix: how about discussing the "real mapping" proposal, see
[38]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
375.html ?
[38]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0375.html
Yves: sounds good
relationship DITA versus XLIFF
Christian: at the XLIFF TC, we are discussing this relationship
... some people say: you need to translate DITA to XLIFF
... others say: you don't need to do that
Yves: I'd say it depends on the implementation of translation
... sometimes you use XLIFF internally, so nobody notices it
Christian: It is also important for the DITA TC
... if you are using DITA "document like", and then convert it to
XLIFF, you use some context information
... which you might have with plain DITA
DITA
Yves: they move forward in implementing xml:lang and directionality
... which is good
face-to-face
Diane: I won't be able to come
Yves: Christian, Sebastian, me and Felix will come
next meeting - time difference
Yves: the meeting will be one hour earlier in Europe
editor's call
Yves: we will have one on Friday, discussing the non-normative parts
of the tagset document
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: all to work on informal description of ITS, including
RI's notes [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to add the xhtml section to the spec [recorded
in [40]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action11]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to enter proposal for the linking mechanism into
bugzilla [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action12]
[PENDING] ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
conformance discussion in the spec. [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]
[PENDING] ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
how to use its:locInfoRef [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
[PENDING] ACTION: put a note on the proposal for grouping data
categories in next working draft [recorded in
[45]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
conformance for Ruby [recorded in
[46]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Tag set editors to integrate discussion result
about bugs 2881,2,3 [recorded in
[47]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action09]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to start the discussion on not having mapping
for the translatability and dir [recorded in
[48]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Yves to work on XHTML + ITS modularization [recorded
in [49]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action10]
[DROPPED] ACTION: All to read and comment on RI's notes [recorded in
[50]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [51]scribe.perl version 1.127
([52]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/03/22 16:27:44 $
[51] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[52] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 16:30:04 UTC