W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > February 2004

RE: [i18n-html-tech] Some editorial comments

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:41:23 -0000
To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c3fb9c$ad74d190$6601a8c0@w3cishida>

Hi Bjorn,

Thanks for these comments. See my comments below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bjoern 
> Hoehrmann
> Sent: 25 February 2004 05:03
> To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [i18n-html-tech] Some editorial comments
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>   Some quick editorial notes on 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/>:
> 
> Sound authoritative!
> 
> 
>   Phrases like "According to the HTML specification ..." leave some
>   doubt whether the statement holds true in practise, the document
>   should rather just tell the facts and if considered useful add a
>   reference to the relevant section in the specification, like (see
>   <a>Section Foo in the Bar specification</a>).

If you are referring to the use in
http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/Overview.html#ri20030218.131104811 ,
there is some doubt in my mind, still to be clarified by testing, as to
whether this holds in practise - esp in IE, so I'm currently hedging until I
can say something clearer like you suggest.  I will add a link there,
though.


> 
> No ampersands!
> 
>   Headings like "Document structure & metadata" look odd, use "and"
>   unless you really refer to the & character (like in XML character
>   references).

As a native speaker it doesn't look odd to me, and it makes for faster
reading, so I'm not convinced on this one.


> 
> Use meaningful anchors!
> 
>   To simplify linking the document anchors should be short, easy to
>   memorize and access. Rather than
> 
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/#ri20030218.131051562
>
>  It should be e.g.
>
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/#use-unicode

Don't want to do this is because it will take me much longer to edit the
document (these ids are produced by a single keypress), and because the
content is changing so much at the moment that any persistent meaningful
names on one day could become misleading names on another.  

The techniques themselves are stored in xml rather than html with the aim of
potentially re-using a given technique in any number of html views
constructed using XSLT.  Since we don't know what document(s) a technique
will end up in, it has to have a universally unique id across all this data.
The currently used format for ids aims to achieve that.


>  It would be helpful if there was some link close to the guideline
>  to figure out the anchor of the current section or copy and paste
>  a link to it. For example each guideline could be a link to itself,
>  like

>    <a id='use-unicode' href='#use-unicode'>Choose UTF-8 or another
>    Unicode encoding for all content.</a>

>  The style sheet does not need to expose that it is a link, it is
>  just a means for more experienced readers that likely want to point
>  to the document in Usenet/Mail/Irc/etc. discussions.

This is a very good idea, that I will implement.


>regards.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 07:41:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:19:00 UTC