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

[I18N ITS] Teleconference Minutes 2006-03-29

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:27:38 +0900
Message-ID: <442AB57A.6070702@w3.org>
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
.. are at http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html and below as
text.

Btw., most of the accepted issues mean changes in the working draft. As
said elsewhere, I'll send a mail for each change.

- Felix


   [1]W3C

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

                        i18n ITS working group

29 Mar 2006

   [2]Agenda

      [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0196.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Andrzej, Christian, Diane, Felix, Goutam, Sebastian, Yves

   Regrets
   Chair
          Yves

   Scribe
          Felix

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules (and in
            general)
         2. [6]How should we rename documentRules and the
            xyzMap/PassThrough/Pointer attributes?
         3. [7]close list of schema languages?
         4. [8]naming of former "map" attributes
         5. [9]ITS new schema syntax
         6. [10]Discuss description of ITS (what is ITS? how to use
            it?)
         7. [11]further action items (including "link" proposal)
         8. [12]Items for coming week
         9. [13]namespace use in the DITA example
        10. [14]call on Friday
        11. [15]other business
     * [16]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules (and in general)

   Yves: do we need a mechanism or not?

   <YvesS> [17]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000

     [17] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000

   Yves: there is consensus we don't need to say anything, except
   saying "extensiblity is handled through namespaces"
   ... I thought we should have extension points
   ... Sebastian and Felix said it would harm validation power

   Sebastian: You have to decide where you have rules, e.g. in the
   schema or separate (e.g. via schematron)
   ... it just depends what you suggest to do
   ... you cannot prevent anything
   ... what is more common: Things we thought about and did not have
   time, or very unusual things?

   Andrzej: I agree with Sebastian

   Yves: o.k.
   ... Felix said we should have an extension example in the paragraph
   about extension
   ... that's it. Everybody agree?

   Christian: one remark:
   ... "people should first check with the standard ITS mechanism, and
   then think about extensions"

   Felix: I'll take the phrase from bugzilla

   Yves: o.k., let's do that

How should we rename documentRules and the xyzMap/PassThrough/Pointer
attributes?

   <YvesS> [18]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000

     [18] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000

   Yves: two items: documentRules element, and former "mapping"
   attributes
   ... first "documentRules":
   ... "itsGlobal", "global", ...
   ... so how about "itsRules" or "rules"?

   Sebastian: technical point:
   ... lower case "its" is strange
   ... since it is not a word

   Yves: only rules, with the prefix "its"?

   Andrzej: "its:rules" is good

   Sebastian: +1

   Felix: +1

   Christian: +1

   Yves, Diane: +1

close list of schema languages?

   <YvesS> [19]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

     [19] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924

   yves: need to rephrase some text, that we don't close the list of
   proposed schemas
   ... Christian, why "modeling or"?

   Christian: taken from one of Eric's article

   Felix: +1

   Yves: o.k., let's go for that

naming of former "map" attributes

   yves: instead of "mapping": "passThrough" or "pointer"

   Sebastian, Felix: vote for pointer

   Christian, Diane: +1

   Andrzej, Yves: +1

ITS new schema syntax

   <YvesS>
   [20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
   301.html

     [20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html

   Felix: part of the proposal: have separate patterns for each data
   category in rule or local usage
   ... and have the definitions in each sections specifically

   Yves: as for Ruby: currently we have only simple ruby, how about
   complex ruby

   Felix: I tried to integrate that into the latest version

   Sebastian: About the proposal of having attributes in rules without
   prefix

   Yves: discuss that later
   ... Felix, make the changes in the draft

Discuss description of ITS (what is ITS? how to use it?)

   <YvesS>
   [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
   406.html

     [21]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0406.html

   richards answer:
   [22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
   477.html

     [22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0477.html

   Yves: everybody agrees?
   ... o.k., Christian can make the changes

further action items (including "link" proposal)

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to enter xhtml sectio into draft (DONE)
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to add proposal for link mechanism into
   bugzilla (DONE) [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]

   Yves: summary of link proposal
   ... see [25]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3050
   ... proposal would be <its:link xlink:href="someRules.xml"/>

     [25] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3050

   Sebastian: where would that element be?
   ... I proposed it as a child of rules, to have only one entry point
   in the schema
   ... e.g. instead of e.g. translateRule, you would have its:link as a
   child of <its:rules>
   ... and how about precedence?

   Yves: as for precedence: I think all rules should have same priority

   Felix: I'd go for Sebastian's proposal: <its:rules><its:link>
   ...</its:rules>

   Andrzej: +1
   ... with xlink:href

   Sebastian: you could also say <its:rules xlink:href"someRules">

   Yves: and that would have precedence other what is in the content of
   <its:rules>

   Christian: I'd still go for processing instructions

   Sebastian: we don't have to rule out processing instructions
   ... because a schema cannot say s.t. about them
   ... i.e., you cannot enforce a syntax of processing instructions

   Andrzej: PIs are rather weak

   Christian: two points:
   ... one is: PIs have no need to touch a schema to establish the
   relationship between my instance and ITS rules

   Felix: how about declaring the xlink:href attribute, and giving PIs
   as an example?

   Sebastian: PIs e.g. in XSLT are quite problematic
   ... how about having an example how it could be done with PIs?

   Yves: so we have an optional attribute xlink:href in the its:rules
   element
   ... and have a text in the spec: PIs are another way to do it
   ... or tools use command line parameters
   ... difference to PI: the xlink:href mechanism is interoperable
   ... and an ITS processor must understand it

   felix: how about having this as a SHOULD

   Yves: it should be a MUST

   Sebastian: yes

   Felix: sorry, I was wrong

   Christian: so if the attribute is used, the processor MUST go to the
   location?

   Yves: right
   ... o.k., consensus to have xlink:href in the its:rules element that
   will point to external rules
   ... and a paragraph about that and PIs and other ways of doing it

   <scribe> ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech (DONE)
   [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]

   [27]http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/content/speakers

     [27] http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/content/speakers

   [28]http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/asset/name/5/xtech_template_v0.6.ot
   t

     [28] http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/asset/name/5/xtech_template_v0.6.ott

   <scribe> ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
   conformance discussion in the spec. (PENDING) [recorded in
   [29]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]

   Yves: an item for next week

   <scribe> ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
   how to use its:locInfoRef (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [30]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]

   <scribe> ACTION: Spec editors to put a note on for grouping data
   categories in next working draft (DONE) [recorded in
   [31]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]

   [32]http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#dat
   acat-selection-position

     [32]
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#datacat-selection-position

   <scribe> ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
   conformance for Ruby (PENDING) [recorded in
   [33]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]

   Felix: I told Richard that if he does not deliver this in time, it
   will not happen

   Yves: o.k.

   <scribe> ACTION: Spec editors to integrate discussion result about
   bugs 2881,2,3 (ONGOING) [recorded in
   [34]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]

   Yves: cannot be decided before terminology discussion

Items for coming week

   Felix's agenda proposal:
   [35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
   193.html

     [35]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0193.html

   Yves: next week we'd talk about versioning
   ... the other two in Felix's mail are done
   ... I'd like to have: discussion about naming: "datacategory"
   ... "tagset", and "localization property" (come up with a
   definition)

   Felix: I'd like to publish again on April 11, if we decide on these
   issues
   ... I'll post mails for each change

namespace use in the DITA example

   [36]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3008

     [36] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3008

   Yves: issue is the example for the DITA modularization
   ... Jirka says that here is a problem

   Sebastian: Jirka said in the instance doc you need the namespace
   thing
   ... in the rules file it is redundant
   ... then he said "//p[translate='yes'] in a rule document
   ... means s.t. different than <p its:translate="..." in the instance
   ... the first is talking about a different document, the second
   about the node itself

   Yves: DITA uses a namespace
   ... they force the empty namespace
   ... and have a prefix for the DITA architectural version
   ... so we write //*[@translate='yes']
   ... so it is a bug of the example, and we should fix it

   Yves: other topic: prefix on attributes

   Sebastian: we should allow it without prefix

call on Friday

   Yves: it would be great to have decisions on the naming stuff on
   Friday

   Andrzej: I will be away for next three weeks

other business

   Christian: usage of stylesheets
   ... is fine, I only need a schema for ITS
   ... so I need a schema or DTD

   Sebastian: I'll send another "working" xsd file

Summary of Action Items

   [PENDING] ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
   conformance discussion in the spec. [recorded in
   [37]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
   how to use its:locInfoRef [recorded in
   [38]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
   conformance for Ruby [recorded in
   [39]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]
   [PENDING] ACTION: Spec editors to integrate discussion result about
   bugs 2881,2,3 [recorded in
   [40]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]

   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to add proposal for link mechanism into
   bugzilla [recorded in
   [41]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to enter xhtml sectio into draft [recorded in
   [42]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
   [DONE] ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech [recorded in
   [43]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
   [DONE] ACTION: Spec editors to put a note on for grouping data
   categories in next working draft [recorded in
   [44]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version 1.127
    ([46]CVS log)
    $Date: 2006/03/29 16:24:14 $

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


Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 16:27:53 UTC

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