W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > June 2002

Web Repositories

From: Cliff Schmidt <cschmidt@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 01:33 +0900
To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Cc: cschmidt@microsoft.com (Cliff Schmidt)
Message-Id: <20020606163316.055111403@toro.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

This is a last call comment from Cliff Schmidt (cschmidt@microsoft.com) on
the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/).

Semi-structured version of the comment:

Submitted by: Cliff Schmidt (cschmidt@microsoft.com)
Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): Microsoft
Comment type: editorial
Chapter/section the comment applies to: 4.4 Responsibility for Normalization
The comment will be visible to: public
Comment title: Web Repositories
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A similar case would be that of a Web repository receiving content from a user and noticing that the content is not properly normalized. If the user so requests, it would certainly be proper for the repository to normalize the content on behalf of the user, the repository becoming effectively part of the producer for the duration of that operation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCERN:
As noted in issue, "Content Producers and Proxies", this scenario is not possible if XML is to be used between the user and the Web repository. This scenario also seems to imply that users may very liberally interpret the boundaries of content production. Could one also claim that the transfer from one repository to another repository was also contained within the realm of content production? What if the second repository was the final destination for the content; does this mean the content never in fact needed to be normalized? 

This scenario seems to encourage users to get around normalization requirements where impractical or inappropriate, yet leaves them with a confusing message and no legal tools to work with (since tools such as XML parsers will only accept normalized text anyway).

RECOMMENDATION:
Delete this paragraph.



Structured version of  the comment:

<lc-comment
  visibility="public" status="pending"
  decision="pending" impact="editorial">
  <originator email="cschmidt@microsoft.com" represents="Microsoft"
      >Cliff Schmidt</originator>
  <charmod-section href='http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-NormalizationApplication'
    >4.4</charmod-section>
  <title>Web Repositories</title>
  <description>
    <comment>
      <dated-link date="2002-06-06"
        >Web Repositories</dated-link>
      <para>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A similar case would be that of a Web repository receiving content from a user and noticing that the content is not properly normalized. If the user so requests, it would certainly be proper for the repository to normalize the content on behalf of the user, the repository becoming effectively part of the producer for the duration of that operation."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCERN:
As noted in issue, "Content Producers and Proxies", this scenario is not possible if XML is to be used between the user and the Web repository. This scenario also seems to imply that users may very liberally interpret the boundaries of content production. Could one also claim that the transfer from one repository to another repository was also contained within the realm of content production? What if the second repository was the final destination for the content; does this mean the content never in fact needed to be normalized? 

This scenario seems to encourage users to get around normalization requirements where impractical or inappropriate, yet leaves them with a confusing message and no legal tools to work with (since tools such as XML parsers will only accept normalized text anyway).

RECOMMENDATION:
Delete this paragraph.
</para>
    </comment>
  </description>
</lc-comment>
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 12:33:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:32 GMT