W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

From: Dan Chiba <dan.chiba@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:43:53 -0700
Message-ID: <486429B9.9070201@oracle.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, "www-i18n-comments@w3.org" <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>

Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Dan Chiba さんは書きました:
>>
>> Phillips, Addison wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure about "RFC 822 zone offset", that is
>>>>> for my European eyes rather US-centric, and not what
>>>>> I'd expect in a memo claiming to be about I18N.  The
>>>>> draft says:
>>>>>
>>>>> | Note that RFC 822 zone offsets are not complete
>>>>> | time zone identifiers
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>> Yes I think this is an important note. Zone offsets are not very
>>>> useful
>>>> because it does not identify a time zone. I think this note implies
>>>> using Olson ID is preferred. (for this reason I intentionally put
>>>> it
>>>> first, switching from the order in the draft).
>>>>     
>>>
>>> I think you draw too broad a conclusion here. I agree that zone 
>>> offsets do not fully identify time zones [1]. However, you can't 
>>> really say that "zone offsets are not very useful", because there 
>>> are plenty of cases in which they are exceedingly useful, such as 
>>> the many cases in which one only has an offset and not a full time 
>>> zone. To deny a system that has only the offset the ability to 
>>> specify it seems foolish, which is why I included that particular 
>>> representation originally.
>>>   
>> I do think zone offsets are useful in some cases and should be valid. 
>> I did not mean to deny a system that can only identify the offset. I 
>> meant generally full time zone is preferred to offset alone. (However 
>> in reality full time zone identification is often not achieved or 
>> supported - web client, calendar, XML schema and ISO 8601, to name a 
>> few.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Dan
>>> I agree with Frank that the references we used originally are stale.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>> Allowing "Z" would be
>>>> also good,
>
> not directly a contribution to this thread, but a related question: 
> what kind of specificity do you expect from the schema at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-i18n/ws-i18n.xsd
> currently we have
> <xs:element name="locale" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
> <xs:element name="tz" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
> and for i18n:preferences an element / attribute extensibility point. 
> Is that enough and should we leave editors to themselves and / or to 
> other specs, e.g. if they want to construct adequate date format 
> specifications like the one's Dan mentioned?
>
> Felix
My opinion is that the schema should be slightly more specific; #3 
language and #4 collation are not based on LDML so there should be 
corresponding element definitions.
<xs:element name="language" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
<xs:element name="collation" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
All others are LDML based, so I think think they should be left to LDML.

Regards,
-Dan
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 23:45:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:36 GMT