W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [widgets] P&C LC comments on I18N/L10N

From: <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 09:59:30 +0200
To: <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C69C7392.77C2%jere.kapyaho@nokia.com>
Marcos,

these formal responses are late due to holidays, but have them anyway. :-)

On 6.7.2009 17.21, "ext Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
>>> I obviously need to dump the sentence in the spec, but I still need to
>>> make the above clear. Can you help me out with that?
>> 
>> I think the problem with the authoring guideline in 8.2 is that there are
>> too many disconnected examples. The third example is all that is needed.
>> When that is moved to the front of the section, then all the prose can be
>> about it.
>> 
>> Here is my suggestion. It gets rid of the two other examples and focuses on
>> the zh-Hans-CN example.

[suggested text elided]
 
> Used your text.

I Can Live With That -- DoC: OK

>>>> How close is this actually to the BCP 47 filtering (basic or extended)
>>>> algorithm? I'm thinking reuse.
>>> 
>>> BCP47 expands a tag and would conceptually do the matching upon expansion.
>>> So:
>>> 
>>> "en-us, fr-fr" would become "en-us, en, fr-fr, fr"
>> 
>> Somehow that seems closer to the actual desired outcome! I would suggest
>> that unless there is no specific reason not to, then maybe we should use BCP
>> 47 filtering as is. Any thoughts from other interested parties?
> 
> We could, but that just adds a bunch of redundancy that needs to be
> filtered out anyway:
> "en-us,en-au,en,fr-ca,zh-hans-cn", would become
> "en-us,en,en-au,en,en,fr-ca,fr,zh-hans-cn,zh-hans,zh".
> 
> We basically just take one more step and clean up the list. So, with a
> bit of magic in our spec, we get:
> "en-us,en,en-au,fr-ca,fr,zh-hans-cn,zh-hans,zh".
> 
> Is it ok if we just leave this section as is?

Yes it is. So for the DoC: OK.

>>> Ok, can you help me with this? Is there something I need to add to the P&C?
>> 
>> Yes, and no. :-) Meaning that you don't need to add anything to the P&C, but
>> tell me what you think about the idea in the next paragraph...
>> 
>>>> An idea I have entertained is to rename the A&E spec to 'Runtime operation'
>>>> or somesuch, and then include in it how the resources should be resolved at
>>>> runtime, but I don't know if that is the right way to do it, and even if it
>>>> was, would it gain traction in the WG. Maybe it is better to raise it in
>>>> another context altogether, rather than as part of the P&C spec review.
> 
> Lets move the above to another email. However, this sounds like
> something that should be in the Widgets URI spec. Having said that,
> I'm not fully understanding your proposal. Can you please extend it in
> a separate email and maybe also CC Robin on it.

OK, I'll think about it and formulate a separate email.

Thanks
--Jere
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 08:00:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT