W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: issue-113 (Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD)

From: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:59:17 -0800
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>, public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, www-international <www-international@w3.org>
Message-Id: <37D152A0-B2FB-49BA-9D67-97F395A41F3C@norbertlindenberg.com>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Hi Felix,

For the items where you agreed with my comments I couldn't find a reason to disagree. I have comments on a few others below, but don't consider any of them blockers.

Thanks,
Norbert


On Feb 27, 2013, at 9:28 , Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Hi Norbert,
> 
> did you see this mail? Are you ok with our proposed resolutions? In most of the cases we accepted your comments. Just asking to move the issue forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Felix
> 

>> Am 19.01.13 07:29, schrieb Norbert Lindenberg:
>>> Dear Multilingual Web LT group,
>>> 
>>> Below is a collection of comments on the Last Call draft. These comments are not directly related to internationalization, so I don't expect the Internationalization WG to track or endorse them.
>>> 
>>> I've also submitted through the issue tracker of the Internationalization WG a number of issues today that I consider internationalization issues (I18N-ISSUE-238 through I18N-ISSUE-247). Note that the working group has not reviewed these issues yet, so at this point they should be considered personal comments.
>>> 
>>> All comments are on
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Norbert

...

>>> The name "MultilingualWeb-LT" Working Group should be spelled out. What does "LT" stand for?
>>> 
>> 
>> we want to keep the ambiguity, since it is on purpose: LT could stand for "localization technology", "language technology", "language related technology", ...

"Lithuania", "long term", "Looney Tunes", ... What's ambiguity for insiders is just confusing to outsiders.

>>> - "in older versions of HTML ... its-* attributes will be marked as invalid in validators": The W3C validator also reject its-* attributes in HTML5
>> 
>> This is just a question of time; ITS2 validation will be integrated in w3c validator. It's already available at http://validator.nu/ . 

I couldn't get that to work, e.g., it wouldn't let me use <p its-mt-confidence=0.8982> . Does it require a preset that's not available yet?

>>> 4.4 Conformance Class for HTML5+ITS documents
>>> 
>>> - This section should refer to HTML5 section 2.2.3 Extensibility.
>>> 
>> 
>> We are reffering to HTML5 spec, we don't think we need to refer to the specific sections, this is also safer in terms of stability of identifiers in the HTML5 spec.

Pointing to a document the size of the HTML spec without additional details isn't really helpful, but I agree that stability is an issue.

>>> - This section should note that conforming HTML5+ITS documents in HTML syntax that include ITS markup are not conforming HTML5 documents.
>> 
>> I don't think we want to make this, it will scare users of ITS. We allow extension attributes and we supply definition of  HTML5+ITS 
>> conforming documents.

But wouldn't users encounter conformance checkers that will reject HTML5+ITS documents because they're not plain HTML documents? It seems better to let them know in advance what's going to happen, why, and how to deal with it.
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 05:59:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 February 2013 05:59:46 GMT