W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re[2]: FW: acronym in title...

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:07:00 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030313175714.029d4540@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>, <ishida@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <public-i18n-geo@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

At 04:37 PM 2003-03-13, Martin Duerst wrote:
>At 09:57 03/03/13 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>
>>At 07:36 AM 2003-03-13, Richard Ishida wrote:
>>[Place all 'localisable' i.e. natural language text in elements, not 
>>attributes.]
>>
>><new>
>>
>>I think that the one thing I should add right away is that there
>>is an option using "annotation" techniques to leave the attribute as is
>>and introduce a higher-quality equivalent through a structure which
>>refers to the attribute.
>
>I agree that this is an option in principle, but for the things
>we are considering (<span xml:lang='...'>, ruby,...), it seems
>like an enormous overhead.

And there are more things that need doing than you are considering.  And
somewhere along that line the preference for how to do it may flop over.

It's not clear which way the overhead is greater.  A 'span' on each instance
could be much more size overhead when compared with a single glossary entry.
But the latter is more risky because it is more indirect.

I am trying very hard not to prejudge the choice, here, because in a
migration strategy for an incompatible change I believe that there is a
place for more than one way of doing things, and that we should not rush to
judgement on how it is to be done.

As I said at the end of the day Wednesday, what I am hoping the community
will develop is better discernment about when to use which manner of
annotation, inline and offline.  Markup is inline annotation.

Al

>Regards,   Martin.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 18:07:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT