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

Re: [widgets] i18n proposals document

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:40:21 -0400
Message-Id: <BDD9BC03-7148-4BD6-9CB3-5DFC381094B5@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
Hi Marcos,

Thanks again for creating this document as it helps frame the  
localization issues we need to address in the short-term i.e. v1 and  
the long-term i.e. v2.

I found the document's proposals difficult to evaluate because I  
continually asked myself "what exactly are the specific requirements  
that are being addressed by each proposal?". Given this, perhaps it  
would be helpful to step back a bit and flesh out the detailed  
localization requirements. The localization requirements in the  
Widgets Reqs doc [Reqs] are too thin to be useful in judging the  
proposals. If we can get consensus on the detailed localization  
requirements, they should help us more objectively evaluate the  
proposals.

It seems like our goal for v1 should be to define a simple model that  
will address ~80% of the use cases yet make sure that model is  
forward compatible with a more sophisticated model we envision  
specifying in v2.

To that end, I prefer A1 and B2 - sufficient functionality for v1.

I can't evaluate the C* and D* proposals without clear requirements.  
I am still at a loss as to why there needs to a separation of the  
UA's locale and the widget's locale. Perhaps it would be helpful if  
you documented the use case(s) that motivate the need for both of  
these. (If A1 and B2 were selected, does that make the the C* and D*  
proposals moot or simpler?)

Regarding the E*, F* and G* proposals, I agree E1, F1 and G1 seem  
like the better choices.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[Reqs] <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#localization- 
guidelines>


On Apr 16, 2009, at 12:41 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Hi i18n WG Members,
> As Web Apps has been struggling a bit to come to consensus on a
> coherent i18n model for widgets, we've prepared a document that
> attempts to map out a complete internationalization model for the
> Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration specification:
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/i18n.html
>
> The purpose of the document is to tease out the complexities of an
> i18n model for widgets and to make a number of proposals that together
> form a complete i18n solution. The Web Apps WG would like to solicit
> some expertise from the i18n Working Group in getting this right.
>
> The document is a work in progress an should be considered an early
> draft (it basically just contains a bunch of strawperson proposals). I
> will continue attempting to improve document over the next few days,
> but please feel free to start sending feedback if you have any. Our
> intention is to decide what the best proposals are and integrate them
> into the Widgets 1.0 Packaging spec. I18n is basically the most
> significant issues blocking our spec from going to Second Last Call.
> We would really appreciate any thoughts or comments the i18n community
> might have (by the 23 of April if at all possible).
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 18:42:16 GMT

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