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

Re: [ACTION-78]Consider consolidation of localeSpecificContent and droprule

From: Shaun McCance <shaunm@gnome.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:53:41 -0400
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Message-ID: <1335718421.20969.11.camel@recto>
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 22:13 +0100, David Lewis wrote:
> > DaveL, Moritz: Could localeSpecificContent be consolidated with
> > dropRule, e.g. specifying the content should be drops for specific
> > locales, for every translation, or for every translation except
> > specified locales?
> > >>Pedro>> Agreed, as long as in “localeSpecificContent” there is a
> > way for saying: not to be translated in any locale. Perhaps for this
> > it also enough Translate: no.

> The objective of localeSpecificContent/dropRule is that it idenitfies
> conent that shouldn't be submitted to the localsiation process at all
> (for all or specific locales). This means, i presume, it should not
> even be included as context. This implies that it should be stripped
> from skeleton file when transformed into XLIFF. 
> 
> In contrast, translate:no retains the element concerned as part of the
> content submitted for localisation, as it may be a meaningful part of
> the content, e.g. a proper name, or useful context, but it is just
> mark not to be translated. Is that everyone's understanding.
> 
> Could we then state the requirement as:
> 
> "Indicate source content elements as only being suitable for
> localisation to specific locales only, for not being suitable for
> localisation to specific locales or for not being suitable for
> localisation at all"

I don't think "suitable for localization" captures the intent. I would
take that to meant the same thing as its:translate, just with control
over languages. Maybe "suitable for inclusion in localization"?

> We might then call it "locale-filter"
> 
> A suggested data model might be
> 
> "locale-filter-type"
> values: "positive", "negative" or "none"
> 
> where value "none" indicates that  the element should not be passed
> for localization under any circumstances
> 
> "positive" means the element MAY ONLY be localised for the locales
> specified in locale-filter-list
> 
> "negative" mean the element MUST NOT be localised for the locales
> specified in the locale-filter-list
> 
> "locale-filter-list"
> value: list of BCP-47 values 

For reference, my outline of the workflow with itstool and how dropRule
fits into it, from the previous thread:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Apr/0143.html

If I understand this correctly, locale-filter-type="none" would be
exactly equivalent to drop="yes". That's easier for me, and better
than the locale="C" hack I'd have had to do (see above email).

I worry that this could be adding complexity without real use cases,
though. I see where "positive" could be useful (e.g. a Swiss legal
notice only in "de-CH;fr-CH;it-CH"), but what's the use case for
"negative"?

What happens when this is declared multiple times? Does each override
the previous? Is there an attempt to augment or restrict the lists?

--
Shaun
Received on Sunday, 29 April 2012 16:54:06 UTC

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