W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > October 2003

RE: ATeXHI 1.0 or Babel Scribe 1.0

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:27:19 -0000
To: "'Karl Dubost'" <karl@w3.org>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002001c39d4e$d8174740$cb01000a@w3c40upc3ma3j2>

Karl, 

Thanks for taking the time to make these comments.  Due to vacation and
travel it may take a while to respond to you, but we will read the
comments carefully and get back to you.

Best regards,
Richard.

============
Richard Ishida
W3C

contact info: http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ 

http://www.w3.org/International/ 
http://www.w3.org/International/geo/ 

See the W3C Internationalization FAQ page
http://www.w3.org/International/questions.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Karl Dubost
> Sent: 25 October 2003 00:57
> To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> Subject: ATeXHI 1.0 or Babel Scribe 1.0
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is a few comments with regard to your 1st WD.
> 	ATeXHI 1.0 or Babel Scribe 1.0
> Authoring Techniques for XHTML & HTML Internationalization 1.0
> 
> First of all, thank you very much for this work it was much needed. I 
> hope you will have success and good reviews for each of your version.
> 
> * QA Spec Guidelines - http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec
> 
> The QA Spec Guidelines are entering in CR phase, which is an 
> implementation phase for the QA WG. It seems that it will be a 
> wonderful opportunity for both WG, GEO and QA, to implement these 
> guidelines and for the QA WG to help and create tools when 
> it's needed.
> 
> This following review is not a review against QA Spec Guidelines
> 
> I have discussed with Richard Ishida on IRC and he told me 
> that some of 
> the verbiage was repeating the same principles along the 
> document. The 
> document to be read by the outline. I Would encourage the editors to 
> write atomic statement for each feature and to not repeat the same 
> verbiage BUT to point to these atomic statement from 
> different outlines.
> 
> 	It will be like having modules addressing some 
> problems, and profiles 
> collecting a set of modules or features applied to specific 
> problems or 
> readers. It will have the advantage for the editor to be easier to 
> maintain as well and less confusing for the reader in certain 
> circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> * Abstract
> 	You limit your scope to XHTML 1.0/HTML 4.01. XHTML 1.1 
> is already a 
> specification and includes Ruby, which is an interesting 
> technology for 
> the Web and I18N. XHTML 2.0 is in development it may be the 
> opportunity 
> to input more I18N stuff in XHTML and when XHTML 2.0 does not address 
> certain I18N issues to put them in this document.
> 
> * Status
> 	"""These are techniques that need to be
> 	addressed from the start of content development
> 	if unnecessary costs and resource issues
> 	are to be avoided later on."""
> 
> 	It's never too late to improve a Web site or a 
> document. It might be 
> benefitial to point out that if the site does not respect simple 
> principles of I18N, it can still improve Step by Step the overall 
> quality.
> 	See http://www.w3.org/QA/2003/03/web-kit where we 
> mentionned I18N
> 
> * 1.3 Standards addressed
> 	"""ote that XHTML source can be served as XML
> 	(using MIME types application/xhtml+xml,
> 	application/xml or text/xml) or HTML
> 	(using the MIME type text/html)."""
> 
> 	It might happen in the future that text/xml be 
> deprecated. There's a 
> lot of discussion around that. It's at risk.
> 
> * 1.4 User agents addressed.
> 	Netscape 7 is a frozen/dead product and will not be 
> developed anymore, 
> I would encourage to focus on Mozilla more than Netscape.
> 	If you want that your document fresh and evolving with 
> tools, you may 
> want to choose to compatibility charts outside of your main document.
> 
> * 2.1 Internationalizing the page header
> 
> The recommendation is good but your example is not very good. If you 
> serve your document as text/html, you do not need the XML declaration
> 	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> And if you serve it as application/xhtml+xml, there's no need to put 
> the xml declaration if your document is utf-8 and utf-16, 
> it's even not 
> recommended, because IE 6 Windows have problem with the xml 
> declaration 
> and pass in quirks mode when it's here.
> 	It's good to encourage utf-8, and there's an incentive 
> to do it by 
> saying that if you use utf-8, you don't need to put the xml 
> declaration 
> and therefore IE 6 will be friendly with you.
> 
> 	"""In case of conflict, the Content-Type
> 	charset declaration and the XML declaration
> 	have precedence over the meta charset statement,
> 	according to the HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0
> 	specifications. [Ed. note: Is this true in
> 	practise? esp wrt IE?]"""
> 
> See CUAP - http://www.w3.org/TR/cuap. There is the precedence order.
> 
> 	"""Use meta charset declarations as early as possible 
> in the head      
>                               element."""
> 	When the browser does not in the http headers the 
> encoding, it will be 
> necessary to parse the begining of the document to get the encoding 
> information. As such, it's indeed preferable to have it at 
> the start so 
> the user agent will be able to display with the correct encoding. 
> Though it might be useful to test or ask to vendors when do they stop 
> parsing the header to find this information.
> 
> 	"""For HTML use the lang attribute, and for
> 	XHTML use the lang and xml:lang attributes
> 	in the html tag. """
> 	There's an incentive to use XHTML over HTML by the fact 
> of being able 
> to smoothen your transition to XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 2.0. In XHTML 1.0, 
> you can use only xml:lang if you wish and you will have no 
> problems to 
> switch to XHTML 1.1 or XHTML 2.0 where xml:lang is the only possible 
> attribute.
> 
> 	One of the reason of using xml:lang or lang attributes 
> in a document, 
> is the behaviour of CSS rules. For example, in IE5 Macintosh 
> if you put 
> a "q" element for citation, the quotes will be different depending on 
> the wrapping language. < blabla > in french, " blabla " in english, 
> etc. You have also rules of selection in CSS 2 depending on the 
> language too.
> 	Another good point to make, if the document is read by 
> a translating 
> agent (automatic translation), it will not have to guess the main 
> language of the language by an heuristic, therefore performance 
> improvement for processing it.
> 	The meta statement must be compatible with the html 
> element, though 
> it's not mandatory. I guess the html element should have 
> precedence on 
> the meta element.
> 
> * 2.2 International Layout considerations
> 	right, left and  before, after
> 	An interesting issue which appeared when we designed a 
> QA stylesheet 
> for right/left direction languages. We have small red arrows in the 
> menu and for languages left to right the arrow points to the right. 
> Luckily enough the arrow was specified with a before CSS 
> structure and 
> was in the CSS and not in the HTML with an img element so we 
> have been 
> able to create another stylesheet for right to left languages. It has 
> been less painful than having thousands of pages to modify.
> 	Though it's interesting to understand that a simple 
> arrow may have 
> internationalization problems.
> 
> * 3.1 Choose a page encoding
> 	Choose UTF-8 or another Unicode encoding for all content.
> 
> 	- Give the list or a reference to a list of Unicode encodings
> 
> 	"""* Unicode (UTF-8) forms will be easier to migrate to 
> XForms."""
> 	You can add for the reasons I gave before:
> 	* Unicode (UTF-8) forms will be easier to migrate to 
> XHTML 1.1/XHTML 
> 2.0
> 
> 	"""If you don't use a Unicode encoding, select an 
> encoding that best 
> supports the languages / characters to be included in the 
> page text."""
> 
> 	This is not testable per se. You might recommend:	
> 	Use an encoding 
> that supports the languages/characters included in the page text.
> 
> 	"""Check that user agents (all agents that must render 
> the page) 
> adequately support the page encoding that you have selected. If not, 
> you                                   might need to use a more widely 
> supported encoding to achieve an adequate degree of user agent 
> support."""
> 
> 	It contradicts in a sense a principle of accessibility 
> and of the Web 
> which says whatever your user agent you should be able to access the 
> content. Though this said, it doesn't solve the problem. I would not 
> encourage people to do browser sniffing too, because it challenges
> 
> 	It's the same for the next technique. """Use character sets and 
> encodings that will be accessible and common to your 
> users.""" when you 
> recommend such techniques, you have to moderate it by explaining the 
> constraints/difficulties it might create to other users.
> 
> * 3.2 Specifying a page encoding
> 
> 	"""Where practical, declare the page's character
> 	encoding by setting the charset parameter in the
> 	HTTP Content-Type header."""
> 
> 	Not where practical, do that all the time. Each time 
> you have the 
> opportunity to serve your document with the right encoding in 
> the HTTP 
> header, just do it. It has the benefit for the user agent to not have 
> to guess or parse the begining of the HTML document to know how to 
> display it.
> 	It's not incompatible with specifying inside the 
> document for the 
> reason you gave, saving locally, etc.
> 
> 	You may give an example for httpd.conf and/or .htaccess 
> for Apache and 
> an example for Jigsaw
> 
> 	Apache httpd.conf and .htaccess
> 
> 	AddCharset utf-8 .html
> 
> 	you can also do things like
> 
> 	<FilesMatch "/somewhere/europe/*.html">
> 		AddCharset iso-8859-1 .html
> 	</FilesMatch>
> 
> Ask to Yves Lafon on the method for Jigsaw.
> 
> """For XHTML served as text/html, where practical use an XML 
> declaration with an encoding attribute."""
> 
> 	No. When XHTML is served as text/html the XML 
> declaration becomes 
> completely irrelevant and as I said gives problem to IE6. And you 
> explain it just after. The visual checking is not a good 
> recommendation. :) even if it's done often.
> 
> * 4.1 Choosing & specifying fonts
> 	"""Do not use <font> tags - use CSS styles instead."""
> 	I see in the Ed Note """Ed. note: Describe the evils of 
> using <font> 
> to cheat on the charset and represent other                   
>           
>        scripts.]""". It would be good to give techniques and examples 
> how the Webmaster can switch from the use of font to the use of other 
> techniques.
> 
> 	"""Always use the serif and sans-serif fallbacks"""
> 	to add "In the font property in CSS".
> 
> 5.3 Specifying the language of a link destination
> 
> 	"""Use the hreflang attribute on the a element."""
> 	It is supported by CSS :)))) You should read my entry about it.
> 
> 	http://www.la-grange.net/2002/09/03#hreflang (french)
> 
> 	CSS rule for it
> 	/* display of the language you linked to */
> 	a[hreflang]:after { content: " [" attr(hreflang) "] "; }
> 
> 	What are the benefits of that?
> 
> 	1) strong usability benefits, the user will know 
> browsing your Web 
> site what is the language of the ressource your are linking 
> to. Imagine 
> you are in a document writtent in french and you link to a 
> reference in 
> english, but some of your readers do not know english at all. 
> They will 
> not have to follow the link to discover afterward they can't read it. 
> They save time, and bandwidth.
> 
> 	2) It will be good if the I18N activity review the CUAP 
> note and add 
> comments to it or new checkpoints. Why? Because you might 
> encourage or 
> recommend behaviours of user agents. For example, you might recommend 
> to a user agent which is an automatic translator to respect the 
> attributes "lang" and "xml:lang" in a document, so it doesn't 
> translate 
> things which should not (like trying to translate french to french 
> sometimes... silly. and to use with intelligence the hreflang 
> attribute. It means in a context where you have this attribute the 
> automatic translator will know beforehand the main language 
> used if the 
> user follow the link and will give the possibility to translate 
> adequatly.
> 	Also for indexing search engines like Google it has the 
> benefits of 
> knowing the language before to index it and so to be more 
> effective in 
> indexing the page.
> 
> * Do not add dir="rtl" to the body tag.
> 	"""According to the Microsoft article Authoring HTML
> 	for Middle Eastern Content, the following behaviors
> 	can only be expected in Internet Explorer 5 if the
> 	dir attribute is on the html element, rather than the
> 	body element."""
> 
> 	Specify which version of IE mac or windows?
> 
> 
> This is it for a first review ;)
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
> W3C Conformance Manager
> *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2003 07:27:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:34 GMT