W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > April 2012

RE: [action 63] naming our standard

From: Des Oates <doates@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:23:14 +0100
To: Dominic Jones <Dominic.Jones@cs.tcd.ie>, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
CC: David Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>, Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7B8D77012FE36343856B6DE17A307DD284B6BDD129@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
My view is that it shouldn't reference ITS simply because the scope of this project, as Dave alluded to initially, is much bigger than that of ITS.  It covers multiple domains in the domains that it covers, but also that it will probably evolve to be more than a tag set: I.e. it will contain some processing and lifecycle constraints stipulating how the metadata must persist across these domains. 

So labelling it as an iteration of ITS may be selling it short.

I agree that MLW is a good 'umbrella brand' that we could adopt. I'm not sure about the 'LT' bit though since I'm not clear myself what it stands for.  

For me the project is about Localis[-able|-ed] Content and/or Metadata [Processing|Management]. Including some reference to all or parts of these functions may make sense if possible. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Dominic Jones [mailto:Dominic.Jones@cs.tcd.ie] 
Sent: 19 April 2012 11:53
To: Jirka Kosek
Cc: David Lewis; Multilingual Web LT Public List
Subject: Re: [action 63] naming our standard

What do you think about MLW-ITS 2.0 which can be abbreviated to ITS 2.0 but includes the umbrella of the MLW tag?


Dominic Jones | Research Assistant 
KDEG, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Mobile: + 353 (0) 879259719

On 19 Apr 2012, at 11:49, Jirka Kosek wrote:

> On 19.4.2012 12:11, Dominic Jones wrote:
>> Sustainability is key in terms of which ever name is chosen. Taking forward ITS is one form of this, where the work conducting in terms of ITS 1.0 drove forward the formation of the WG and subsequent development of "ITS 2.0". However I think the fact that the WG has adopted the brand of MLW provides a really good chance to future proof a naming convention. So my view is MLW-LT as a name of the standard is perfect as it allows for future MLW-** standards and builds on the concept of the multilingual web. 
> Name of standard shouldn't be just abbreviation, it should make sense
> when fully expanded. I don't see reasonable expansion of MLW-LT to name
> of specification, while I can see reasonable expansion of ITS, LITS or
> 				Jirka
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Professional XML consulting and training services
>  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 11:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:08:16 UTC