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

[Bug 3481] Translatability

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:48:57 +0000
CC:
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1G2ucr-0004fy-Sc@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3481

           Summary: Translatability
           Product: ITS
           Version: LastCall
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ITS tagset
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: ysavourel@translate.com
         QAContact: public-i18n-its@w3.org


Issue #5 of i18nCore comments:
http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/

Section 6.2: 'Translatability' is not a good term for this, since it is already
used in the sense of internationalization to allow for easy translation.
Perhaps "Translation information" would be better, and more consistent with
other data category titles.

FS: The first ITS WD already talks about "translatabilty". So does the
requirements document http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-itsreq-20050805/#transinfo .
Given this long history of the term which you must be aware of, I disagree with
your request to change it. I also disagree with your argument of consistency
with other data categories: Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a
subset of data categories, see also the conformance section which separates
data categories. Hence, consistency of naming is not so important, but rather
consistency between ITS working drafts, implementations, presentations, ... . 

I18n: There is no need to be consistent in this regard with past working
drafts. People should expect Working Drafts to change, as described in the
status section. There is a much greater need to go forward with appropriate
terminology.

We don't see that this is a difficult change to make. 

"Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a subset of data categories"
We believe this is irrelevant to appropriate naming of a given data category,
but in addition I don't think you are proposing that the 'translatability'
category will always be used independently of other implementations, so I don't
think this argument holds. 

We may be prepared to accept that 'Translation Information' is too vague.
Alternative suggestions for the title are 'Translate Information' or 'Translate
Directive'.
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 2006 18:49:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC