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

Re: [action 63] naming our standard

From: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:19 +0000
Message-ID: <4F909F57.6020105@emi.ac.ma>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hello,

Pragmatic reasons to keep ITS abbreviation...
Despite its technical connotation; while something around the MLW 
abbreviation is more in the spirit of "Creation of Content in World's 
Languages", as mentioned by the press release.

Najib


On 4/19/12 3:25 PM, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I tend to agree with Felix to simply keep "ITS":
>
> - The new work builds upon the ITS 1.0 principles and mechanisms. It just broaden the scope to include more data categories and more target implementations.
>
> - That avoids the need to explain what's the relation between ITS 1.0 and "whatever" (explaining ITS is already not easy, having "ITS 2.0" named something else would not help).
>
> - But probably more to the point, I also think the current set of data categories is a big mix of very different things and "Internationalization" may be a better vague umbrella to encompass them than "localization". For example annotating a content for named entities is not necessarily related to localization (e.g. one can do this for data mining). All data categories however are related to facilitating the use and manipulation of the content in a multilingual and multi-cultural context. That's basically internationalization. In other words, facilitating localization is part of internationalization.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
> =======================================================
>
> Am 19. April 2012 11:42 schrieb David Lewis<dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>:
> As discussed in the last TC, as we increasingly advertise the work of our group, it becomes more important that we decide what we call it.
>
> Possible option are:
> 'ITS 2.0'
> pros: established brand
> cons: focus on internationalisation whereas the delta is more related to localisation and even publication
>
> 'MLW-LT':
> pros: matches name of the group
> cons: perhaps not very descriptive of a standard
>
> Other options might be to extend the ITS brand to encompass the stronger localisation, e.g
> - Localisation and Internationalisation Tag Set (LITS)?
>
> What are you opinions? Any other suggestions?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 23:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:24:55 UTC