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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:33:14 +0100
Message-ID: <512F083A.5080903@w3.org>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <w3@norbertlindenberg.com>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, www-international <www-international@w3.org>
Hi Norbert,

thanks a lot for the feedback, just one explanation below.

Am 28.02.13 06:59, schrieb Norbert Lindenberg:
> 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?


This example should work
http://validator.nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2012%2FWD-its20-20121206%2Fexamples%2Fhtml5%2FEX-term-html5-local-1.html&schema=http%3A%2F%2Fs.validator.nu%2Fhtml5-its.rnc+http%3A%2F%2Fs.validator.nu%2Fhtml5%2Fassertions.sch+http%3A%2F%2Fc.validator.nu%2Fall%2F

FYI, Jirka Kosek created also a validation tool calling validator.nu 
offline, see
https://github.com/kosek/html5-its-tools

Best,

Felix

>
>>>> 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 07:33:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 February 2013 07:33:38 GMT