RE: [all] call for concensus on Translation Provenance Agent (related to ISSUE-22)

>> 2) IRI vs URI
>
> ...Yes, this occurred to me and i was also going 
> to raise it in general. I think to be consistent 
> with best practice of the internationalization activity,
> not to mention the inherently global market for 
> conforming products we should go for IRI when 
> not otherwise constrained.

Actually, looking back at ITS1, there is a clear provision for IRI: http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#iri-usage
I'm not sure why we used URI in the description of the attributes. There was probably a good reason for that.


>> 4) Global rules
> 
> ...This might make definition a bit lengthy, so does 
> it make sense to split translation agent and 
> revision agent into two different data category definitions?
> Its sort of an editorial decision.

It seems both information are related. But at the same time either one could work without the other as well. Either way would be fine I suppose.

-ys

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:17:37 UTC