W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] i18n proposals document

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:16:11 +0200
Message-ID: <49E8730B.4010800@opera.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
CC: "'public-webapps'" <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Hi Yves,
On 4/17/09 5:37 AM, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
> A few notes:
>
> === From a localizer viewpoint (so maybe not from a user-agent efficiency view), using the locale folders method is likely better than the localized elements method:
>
> Having a document with the same content in multiple languages often requires much more manipulations to get translated in several languages, and possibly some manual work (e.g. to put back all the translations in the same document) than monolingual files. While this seems not a big deal, it is actually quite time consuming when you are starting to have updates
>
> See the best practice #12 listed in "Best Practices for XML Internationalization" [1] for more detailed reasons.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#DevMLDoc
>
> So, while I see that it is a valid and even useful method, it is also one that has more side effects than the locale folders one.

Although we allowed multiple config.xml files in the current published 
WD, we made the decision to move to a single config.xml file based on 
feedback received from i18n core as part of their LC review comments [1]:

[[
"2. Section 7.4 (Widget) The various language bearing elements such as 
<name>, <description>, etc. are of the zero-or-one type. However, it is 
typically better to allow any number of these elements to occur, 
provided that none share the same xml:lang. This allows for localization 
(which is part of the point in allowing xml:lang on the element)."
]]

In [2], I responded to the above by saying:
[[
"We followed "Best Practice 12: Working with multilingual documents" in
Best Practices for XML Internationalization, where it says we
should have different documents for this kind of localization (to
achieve what you propose, we allow multiple configuration documents in
a widget).

   Does i18n core recommend we drop allowing multiple configuration
documents and use xml:lang in multiple elements in the manner
suggested above? We have built a lot infrastructure around the current
model in the spec, so if it's all the same we would prefer to keep it."
]]

We didn't receive a reply from i18n; so, after further consideration, we 
decided to go with having a single config.xml file and rely on xml:lang 
to differentiate between localized and unlocalized content.

Our plan was to move to multiple config.xml documents in future versions 
of the spec.

>
> === In section 8 there is:
>
> "Localized config.xml - The author has declared at least one xml:lang attribute for an element in the configuration document."
>
> It sounds like the author could have declared more than one xml:lang attribute for a single element.
>
> Did you mean something like: "For each given type of element in the configuration document the author has at least one with the xml:lang attribute"?

I did, I've used your text instead.

Thank you for the feedback!

Kind regards,
Marcos

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0259.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0522.html
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 12:16:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT