W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > February 2009

RE: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext strings? (eg. different languages/scripts)

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:46:16 -0700
To: "'Phil Archer'" <phil@philarcher.org>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: <public-powderwg@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-ID: <005f01c98aef$1232b660$36982320$@com>

Hi Phil,

> ...I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is
> temporarily at [2] as well

I've looked at http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml

There is a selector="//p:powder" where the prefix "p" is not mapped to any namespace URI.


By the way, while looking a little below http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization
I've notice that Example 3-1 had a <wdrs:describedby> element where "wdrs" was not decaled either.

-ys


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil
> Archer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:35 AM
> To: Felix Sasaki
> Cc: public-powderwg@w3.org; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Dan Brickley
> Subject: Re: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext
> strings? (eg. different languages/scripts)
> 
> 
> Thanks Felix,
> 
> I think I see a way forward then. As long we make it clear that any
> linguistic processing is to be done independently of POWDER, and that
> any ITS tags are lost in the transformation from POWDER to POWDER -S
> (i.e. it's turned into RDF/OWL) then we should be OK.
> 
> To this end I've added an extra couple of lines, visible temporarily at
> [1]. I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is
> temporarily at [2] as well (I've just edited the one Yves sent).
> 
> OK?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil.
> 
> [1] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization
> [2] http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml
> 
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
> > Hello Phil, all,
> >
> > Phil Archer さんは書きました:
> >>
> >> Yves, Dan,
> >>
> >> Over the last week or so I've been working through all the comments
> >> we've received (again, double checking everything before we go to PR)
> >> and looked again at those you sent [1, 2], both of which relate to
> >> language/translation issues. I realised that there was more to do...
> >>
> >> Initial lack of support for xml:lang was an omission. I've now
> >> implemented support for it in the relevant elements in the POWDER
> >> Processor I've been working on [3] and it's already supported in the
> >> other tools we have.
> >>
> >> For example [4] shows you the output of a processor given a POWDER doc
> >> that makes it very plain that anything on example.com or example.org
> >> is red in multiple languages.
> >>
> >> I've also amended the relevant documentation to make it clear that
> >> xml:lang attributes are appropriate for use on the displaytext,
> >> comment and label elements. See the change log at [5] for pointers to
> >> the relevant text.
> >>
> >> Although xml:lang attributes may be added to tag elements, we don't
> >> recommend it for the reasons shown in the new section on localisation.
> >>
> >> Regretfully, it does not appear to be possible to include the ITS tag
> >> set. This is because although POWDER is encoded in XML, it transports
> >> RDF and can be transformed into RDF/OWL. Therefore, although it looks
> >> like XML, one really has to think of POWDER as RDF which interprets
> >> XML attributes as datatype properties. This means that they can only
> >> appear in node elements and things like its:translate do not have the
> >> desired semantics within POWDER.
> >>
> >> Therefore, unless there is a way to use ITS with RDF, we can't
> >> integrate it as Yves has suggested.
> >
> > The idea of ITS is to be available for localization and
> > internationalization of XML formats. Some specifications, like Powder,
> > define XML only as one serialization for their data model. That
> > restricts the possibilities for ITS, but IMO it does not make them
> > impossible. The important bit here is that ITS-processing is independent
> > of Powder processing. As Yves said:
> > "The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to
> > localize or *preform* some linguistic-related tasks on the
> > document. "
> > So one could say "If a user needs to localize Powder documents, ITS
> > provides a means to achieve this within the XML serialization of Powder".
> >
> > I agree that currently there is no way to use ITS within RDF on the data
> > model, serialization-independent level of RDF, and that this would be
> > desireable, though probably hard to achieve in a timely fashion.
> > Nevertheless I am not aware of any other means to express localization
> > requirements on the data model level of RDF. Hence, ITS would solve the
> > problem at least for one serialization.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> >>
> >> If you have any further comments, or if you disagree with our action
> >> here, do please let us know.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Phil.
> >>
> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0046.html
> >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Jan/0020.html
> >> [3] http://i-sieve.com/cgi-bin/processor.cgi
> >> [4] http://tinyurl.com/c62tsn
> >> [5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090203-diff.html#sincelc1
> >>
> >>
> >> Yves Savourel wrote:
> >>> Hi Phil,
> >>>
> >>>> OK, now I'm being a little lazy - because I'm trying to expedite
> >>>> this ASAP and I admit to only having seen the ITS doc for the first
> >>>> time this afternoon. You've kindly sent us an ITS rules file - is
> >>>> the idea that every POWDER doc should link to this? Or at least,
> >>>> every POWDER doc that includes localised tags? Or should we embed
> >>>> the rules in the schema?
> >>>
> >>> The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to
> >>> localize or preform some linguistic-related tasks on the
> >>> document.
> >>>
> >>> It is certainly not necessary to have the rules in every document
> >>> instance.
> >>> Including them in the schema could be a good way to make sure it's
> >>> readily accessible.
> >>> Or it could be a separate document (with a link to it in the spec).
> >>> From the view point of the ITS processor it doesn't really
> >>> matter.
> >>>
> >>> -yves
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Phil Archer
> w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 19:46:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:14 GMT