- From: r12a <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:12:46 +0100
- To: "public-i18n-bidi@w3.org" <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [minutes] Internationalization telecon 2016-08-04 with Social Web WG Resent-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 19:38:26 +0000 Resent-From: www-international@w3.org Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 20:36:10 +0100 From: ishida@w3.org To: www International <www-international@w3.org>, public-socialweb@w3.org On 05/08/2016 13:31, ishida@w3.org wrote: > jasnell: Whatever we do with the metadata, however we indicate > this base direction, there is definitely a tradeoff cost > ... We already have some complexity of name and nameMap > ... I'm suspecting that the property approach is probably goign > to be the most reliable for the base direction. Some > combination of this property and the control codes > ... But we need to take that time to balance the approach > against existing complexity of name vs nameMap > ... We should take our time, put together a proposal I just posted some notes that may be of help for your discussion and proposal at https://www.w3.org/International/wiki/Activity_Streams_direction_notes These notes are not proposals, just observations and lines of thought that may be germaine to the topic. There were some things i mentioned on the telecon that were a little complicated to discuss in the time available - i thought through those things while creating the page. It's definitedly possible that i'm misunderstanding something about how Activity Streams works, and if so i hope you help me to a better understanding gently. I also reopened https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/336 since i think that's the issue we were discussing on Thursday. I added a link to the above notes. hope that helps, ri
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 12:12:57 UTC