W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: I18n recharter should address localizability

From: Addison Phillips [wM] <aphillips@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 08:33:12 -0700
To: "Sue Ellen Wright" <sewright@neo.rr.com>, "Tex Texin" <tex@xencraft.com>, <www-international@w3.org>
Cc: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
Message-ID: <PNEHIBAMBMLHDMJDDFLHGEAGIFAA.aphillips@webmethods.com>

Thanks, Sue and Tex, for your feedback.

I think localizability is an interesting and potentially broad topic, as different technologies have different requirements in this area. In addition, there appears to be some blending here of "localizability of W3C technologies" (such as XHTML or XML) and "localization technologies" (like TMX, XLIFF, etc.). In order to incorporate work on localizability into one or both WG charters (or into a separate new charter), there are two questions that need to be answered:

1. What is the nature of the deliverables? To put something in a charter, we need to know exactly what the working group would deliver. Tex has suggested creating requirements for localizability, i.e. research into what needs to be done. He also writes:

> > There are no guidelines within the W3C for architecting applications, or for
> > that matter designing W3C specifications, to insure
> > localizability, or recommendations for processes supporting localization of
> > applications.

Is it possible that GEO's continuing work on authoring guidelines could be expanded to deal with this? The "G" in GEO stands for guidelines and their charter appears (to me) to include this as a deliverable. They are producing authoring guidelines for (X)HTML. 

GEO is not currently planning to charter to produce REC-track work (that is, specifications for new technology). If new standards are required, then it would either need to be included in the Core charter or a new Working Group charter would need to be created. 

2. Who is willing to commit to contributing to this effort? In order to do work we need *active* participation, particularly by representatives of member companies/organizations of the W3C. Active participation means a commitment to take and complete assignments, come to meetings, and participate in the activities related to the items in question 1 and to see that the work is finished. It need not be an overwhelming commitment, but it does require some level (possibly small) of regular participation.

Please note: I'm not suggesting that this is not of interest to the W3C or not important. I'm just trying to indicate the necessary steps to including work of this type in our charters. An indication of commitment and details of what would be produced are necessary to this. 

Best Regards,


Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-international-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Sue Ellen Wright
> Sent: 2004年7月16日 7:50
> To: Tex Texin; www-international@w3.org
> Cc: Yves Savourel
> Subject: Re: I18n recharter should address localizability
> Hi, Tex, et al.,
> I really think that you've raised some critical issues here. I'm in the
> process of writing one of my recurring articles on language industry
> standards, and am tracking the W3C i18n evaluation of its mission at the
> same time that LISA/OSCAR is trying to redefine its goals for the 
> near term.
> Whenever I delve into these issues I'm struck by the activity that's going
> on in a variety of venues, which brings up concerns about long-term
> interoperability of different standards efforts. There's even the 
> problem of
> providing information in such a way that everybody involved knows 
> what other
> players are up to. I see duplicated effort in some regards (not 
> right here,
> but in some other areas), and the initiation of very similar projects in
> different contexts. Duelling standards sometimes evolve and
> inter-organizational rivalries sometimes exist (Group X members 
> for instance
> may represent companies that stormed out of Group Y at some time 
> in the past
> ...). Somewhere we need to have an entity that if nothing else keeps track
> of what's going on and monitors interoperability issues. Heaven 
> save us from
> anything like a cohort of "standards police", but the diversity 
> of projects
> that are out there underscores a real need for the kind of liaison you are
> suggesting.
> Lurking as usual
> Sue Ellen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tex Texin" <tex@xencraft.com>
> To: <www-international@w3.org>
> Cc: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:20 AM
> Subject: I18n recharter should address localizability
> >
> > The technologies of the W3C have become very sophisticated, enabling the
> > development of complex, powerful applications. Although these 
> technologies
> make
> > some provision for language and culture through the internationalization
> > efforts of the organization, it is not at all obvious or easy to
> efficiently
> > localize applications using these technologies.
> >
> > There are no guidelines within the W3C for architecting applications, or
> for
> > that matter designing W3C specifications, to insure
> > localizability, or recommendations for processes supporting localization
> of
> > applications.
> >
> > This is a significant deficiency. There have been some external efforts,
> such
> > as XLIFF and TMX, which make use of XML in support of exchanging
> localization
> > data, but that does not address insuring that the design of an 
> application
> > supports localization of that application. Application developers are
> > discovering when they face their first localization effort that some
> > rearchitecting is called for. Other technologies and platforms for
> development
> > of applications come with a recommended architecture and support for
> > localization, so that if the recommendations are adhered to, the
> application
> > can be efficiently localized.
> >
> > Web Services is certainly an area where localization 
> requirements will be
> > significant and this is exemplified in the Web Services
> Internationalization
> > Usage Scenarios draft
> > 
> There are some industry experts that are developing guidelines for using
XML so
> that contents can be localized. Yves Savourel (ENLASO) has published
> information in that regard. (See his paper in the next Unicode conference
> http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc26/abstracts.html#a006). Richard Ishida
(W3C) has
> published localization considerations for DTD design. However, the W3C
> raise awareness within its organization of the need for specifications to
> support efficient localization in proposed technologies, and there should
> architectural recommendations for achieving this.
> To accomplish this, some resources need to be allocated to work on it.
> the I18n working group or perhaps a separate Localization Working group
> be tasked with defining requirements, and recommending appropriate
> architectures. A separate group or task force may be called for, as the
> and tasks for localization may be different from those used for i18n.
> There should be liasions between the localization group and the other
> organizations in the localization and linguistics space and coordination
> related standards e.g. XLIFF, TMX, etc.
> The team should have some members that are experienced with localization
> documents and applications.
> Please consider this in the rechartering of the i18n wg.
> tex
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
> Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
> XenCraft             http://www.XenCraft.com
> Making e-Business Work Around the World
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 11:52:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 21 September 2016 22:37:24 UTC