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

Re: [all] editorial review of section 1 of ITS sepc

From: Aaron Beaton <aaronb@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:38:56 +0200
Message-Id: <2B75A5CA-A10A-47D0-91FC-7DC6088A7979@opera.com>
To: Multilingual Web LT Public List <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hi All,

Dave, thanks for sending your proposed changes through. I've added some comments for the first two sections in the attached document. (I had to save it as OpenOffice format as saving as .docx oddly results in most of the pages going missing. Let me know if you have any problems with it or if anything is not clear, as I lost some of the deletions that went with additions at one point.)

General Notes:
* It's pretty dense in places but I think that with a bit of tweaking it can be made more accessible, particularly for localization professionals and content authors. More specific notes are in the document.

* Mentions of the local and global approach are in different orders throughout the document. Prior to section 5, local approach is mentioned before global approach and from section 5 onwards this is reversed. Can we have a consistent ordering?

* As Dave identified, some of the examples need to be simplified, where possible. As a reader, I may find the data category I want and look straight at the example - particularly if I have read about it before and just want a refresher on how to use it. Further to this, is it possible to make the GLOBAL and LOCAL sections within "Implementation" a bit more obvious/separated? The same would be good for XML and HTML5 examples as well, I think. When reading a document such as this, and potentially reading many examples, I appreciate it when the examples are consistent - using consistent text examples, elements, etc where possible. It's less jarring and helps the information sink in.

* The abstract mentions how ITS 2.0 is designed to leverage localization workflows based on XLIFF, but XLIFF isn't referenced within the text. Some description of the relationship should be included, as I think this would be important to localization teams.



-- 
Aaron Beaton
Localization Engineer
Opera Software ASA
aaronb@opera.com

On 31 Aug, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:

> Guys,
> I just wanted to give a snap shot of where I am in reviewing section1, to get your feedback on some of the changes I'm proposing before i go much further, and also to make sure we don't unnecessarily duplicate editing work with the others doing editorial reviews (David, Aaron, Felix etc)
> 
> To date I've done some rework on 1.1, which i hope will then give us space to make 1.2 a bit more focused. The current 1.2 text is more a motivation for l10n and i18n rather than its per se, so this need to be refocussed onto more specific business-led interoperability problems.
> 
> I've inserted various MS word comment on what I think needs to be done on this and subsequent sections. Happy to hear any feedback, comments etc at this stage, and if anyone want to help with some of the subsection revisions that would be great.
> 
> I'll pick this up again on monday (I need to revise the provenance stuff today), so if you could send any input or feedback by then that would be helpful.
> 
> cheers,
> Dave
> 
> <1 Introduction-revisions.docx>




Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 07:31:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:00 UTC