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

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 03:38:48 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <1173.12.46.55.86.1158172728.squirrel@webmail.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Yves, all

>
> Hi Richard, Sebastian,
>
> Refering to today's discussion about changing "Transltability" to
> "Translate"
>
> I've been looking at the document and it seems "Translate" will be a bit
> difficult. The main reason is that it is a verb, not a
> noun. All the other data categories are nouns, and when trying to change
> to "translate" or (more often) "translate data category"
> the text looks often very awkward.
>
> Again, I wonder if "Translate information" would be better?

+1 (with greetings from the airport)

Felix
> I was wondering also if capitalizing the first word of the data catgory
> names would help (in general)?
>
> Any thoughts?
> -yves
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:45 AM
> To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability
>
>
> The i18n Core WG still feels that 'translatability' is incorrect for
> describing this data category, since it is typically used to
> describe whether something has been enabled for translation, rather than
> whether something should be translated or not.
>
> We would like the ITS group to consider one more time whether this can be
> changed.
>
> Suggested alternatives:
> Translate
> Translate flag
> Translate switch
> Translate information
> Translate directive
>
>
> Thanks,
> RI
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
>> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:53
>> To: ishida@w3.org
>> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org;
>> public-i18n-its@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability
>>
>> Hello i18n core,
>>
>> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3481 for our discussion
>> .
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comment. We propose not to change the
>> name of the data category, and keep "translatability".
>>
>> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't
>> hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>> ishida@w3.org wrote:
>> > Comment from the i18n review of:
>> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
>> >
>> > Comment 5
>> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
>> > Editorial/substantive: E
>> > Owner: RI
>> >
>> > Location in reviewed document:
>> > 6.2
>> >
>> > Comment:
>> > '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 usedindependently 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 Wednesday, 13 September 2006 18:38:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:08 UTC