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

[I18N ITS] Teleconference Minutes 2006-03-22

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:29:21 +0900
Message-ID: <44217B61.6020400@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-its@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

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