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

[I18N ITS editor's call] Teleconference Minutes 2006-03-24

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:26:48 +0900
Message-ID: <44241DC8.2020408@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
.. are at


and below as text.

- Felix


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

                i18n ITS working group (editor's call)

24 Mar 2006

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/24-i18nits-irc


          Christian, Diane, Felix, Yves




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]today's topics
         2. [5]richard's change proposals
         3. [6]sec. 2.2. of Richard's proposal
         4. [7]techniques document
     * [8]Summary of Action Items

today's topics

   christian: my proposal: Richard's input on an overview section
   ... then the question: should we continue talking about data
   ... a related topic: the name "tag" inside "internationalization tag

   felix: another possible topic:
   ... how about reviewing change proposals in later calls


richard's change proposals



   Christian: I would adopt SECTION 1.1, as Richard proposed

   yves: do we need so extensive changes in sec. 2?

   christian: maybe the title of the section does not fit with the
   ... what we currently have on basic concepts are really ITS concepts
   ... Richard describes ITS use cases
   ... it is identical until 2.2.

   felix: we might need sections for ITS users, and ITS implementors
   ... Richard wrote about users, Christian for implementors?

   christian: ITS usage scenarios would make sense
   ... I would adopt the whole section 2.1

   yves: as a section before 1.2?

   christian: yes
   ... or 1.1?

   Diane: before the examples

   yves: so: 2.1 of Richard as new section 1.1

sec. 2.2. of Richard's proposal

   yves: a lot of rewriting necessary


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


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

   yves: should the spec contain lot's of explanatory parts?

   christian: it should have
   ... my basic concepts section describe ITS from the perspective of
   our own work
   ... Richard describes how stuff could be used

   yves: is it possible to mix the sections?

   christian: I'd take Richard's 2.1 and 2.2
   ... and turn this into our new 1.1., with the title usage scenarios

   diane: some if it is out of date

   felix: how about having Christian and Richard as the main
   responsibles for ITS "explanation"?

   christian: how about writing a mail to Richard, saying what we
   ... if he is o.k. with that, the editor's would need to ensure that
   stuff is implemented

   felix: how about dividing the work between normative and
   non-normative parts?
   ... christian and Richard could work on that

techniques document

   christian: we should push the group to look at the things in

   <scribe> ACTION: Yves to post a mail to start a thread about
   localization properties [recorded in

   felix: don't we do too much, then we discuss many other issues?

   yves: maybe it does not need the same participation

   <scribe> ACTION: felix to make a time schedule including all bugs
   [recorded in

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: felix to make a time schedule including all bugs
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Yves to post a mail to start a thread about
   localization properties [recorded in
   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([18]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/03/24 16:25:20 $

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

Received on Friday, 24 March 2006 16:27:19 UTC

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