W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-ws@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Overview comments

From: Addison Phillips [wM] <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:21:32 -0500
To: "Tex Texin" <tex@i18nguy.com>, "W3C I18n WS" <public-i18n-ws@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHGEEAHFAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>

Hi Tex,

Thanks for the comments. Some comments below. I'll post the new draft when I
get into the office in a bit.

> http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-requirements-edit/Overview.html
> Here are some comments on the overview doc. Sorry about the length, most
> are minor editorial notes. However, if you don't have time to read all,
> pls look at the section on the Requirements, as that may require
> significant rewording.
> 1) The document margins are fixed width. Suggest making them a
> percentage of the window width, so if the window is made thinner, the
> margins are reduced and more of the window contains text (user needs to
> scroll the window left/right less).

This isn't under my control: it's the stylesheet. The original document is
the XML flavored thing.

> 2) Title- suggest making it less ambiguous:
> Requirements for Internationalization of Web Services

Good idea.
> 3) Editors- suggest adding company names to reward our sponsors...

I agree. Will do.
> 4) Intro
> should IRI be mentioned with URI?

Absolutely, although the definition is cribbed (quoted verbatim from the WSA
document). That doesn't mean that we shouldn't add our own tilt to it
> 5) Intro second para
> This para raised a few questions for me:
> "In the course of creating the [Web Service I18N Usage Scenarios], the
> W3C Internationalization Working Group has discovered that, in order for
> there to be complete interoperability, internationalization options must
> be exposed in a consistent way in the messages exchanged between systems
> using Web services and that Web service descriptions may need to
> describe capabilities or limitations to potential users."
> a) should we say the WS task force or leave it as i18n WG?

The full name is a bit chewy, which is why I didn't use it originally in
what is already an overly long sentence. I'll break the sentence up and add
WSTF to the name.
> b) minor editorial nit but we didn't discover the requirements as much
> as demonstrated or shown...

> c) The key points should be brought out as bullets for emphasis and ease
> of identification/reference.
> I propose:
> The W3C Internationalization Working Group demonstrated with
> several scenarios [Web Service I18N Usage Scenarios] that
> to achieve complete interoperability in Web Services,
> internationalization must be considered and addressed.
> In particular, to have world wide usability and utilization, web
> services must:
> 1) expose language and culture-dependent options in the message
> exchanges  between systems using Web services, and
> 2) describe internationalization capabilities and limitations to
> potential users in Web service descriptions.
> (I could see expanding with more bullets but than the intro becomes the
> requirements list...)

I took your suggestions as a baseline and wordsmithed slightly. Check out
the new version when I get it posted later today.
> 6) Requirements
> These do not strike me as requirements statements, which I expect to be
> a problem statement for subsequent development documents to resolve.
> These strike me as feature descriptions or solutions. Should these be
> reworded to identify the requirement that needs to be satisfied?

That's the right way to do it, although I followed the pattern of the XML
and SOAP requirements documents (which just made bald faced statements).
> For example, bullet #2 says:
> A WSDL feature that describes the SOAP Feature in R001.
> It is very hard for anyone to look at this and understand what we mean
> by it,
> and it is not a requirement statement. It is a solution to a
> requirement.
> (In fact, we need to define the "R001" syntax. I assume we mean the
> first requirement. The doc needs to say so.)

I'll add some text here.
> I don't have time tonite to propose a rewording for all of these. Not
> sure if I can do it by Friday either...
> 7) References
> links need fixing. Where the document makes use of a reference, a link
> to the reference item should be made. Currently there are none.

> 8) Acknowledgements
> First para last word- change to "creation".

Ick. Done.
> For the size of the doc, the acknowledgements is a bit lengthy. I would
> eliminate the last sentence and if anyone deserves such acknowledgement
> add them as an editor.

> hth
> tex
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
> Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
> XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
> Making e-Business Work Around the World
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2003 08:24:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:38 UTC