- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:24:50 -0400
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "Richard Ishida, Staff Contact, i18n WG" <ishida@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <576DCF52.2060600@w3.org>
With a little work, our specs would let me signal "Like" on this email,
without having to give a thoughtful reply. :-)
-- Sandro
On 06/24/2016 08:13 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>
> Thanks Sandro.
>
> But they're not stable, then. I guess in theory we could try to
> notice, for each of our many specs, when we're down to issues that
> somehow don't bear on i18n, and then ask for i18n review, then notice
> when we're down to issues that somehow don't bear on a11y and then ask
> for a11y review, and so on with each kind of horizontal review for
> each spec... I've been through this a dozen times in as many
> years, and I've still no idea how to do it, other than wait until all
> the issues are closed. Perhaps I'm a slow learner.
>
> That’s true: they’re not stable. But often the interesting I18N
> discussions are actually the best time to involve the I18N community.
> What makes me nervous is approaching a WG whose spec is in CR and
> going “oh, you didn’t think about tagging all of X with a language” or
> “your requirement doesn’t allow international text” or worst of all
> “you’re missing a feature”. WGs and implementers are not happy to have
> to go back to the drawing board: there is disincentive to getting to
> the right solution.
>
> But it’s also true that when a spec is unstable, the comments are more
> distracting and less targeted and you’re busy trying to get consensus
> on Things That Matter (not that I18N doesn’t matter, but…)
>
> As a WG, we’ve been trying to make the process a little more
> self-service. For example, we’ve started to harvest our comments and
> build a “best practices” document [1] to work as a kind of mini
> checklist. If your spec already bears our considerations in mind, then
> presumably we’ll only have to look at the truly novel stuff.
>
> Ultimately, if we have six or so months, as here, we aren’t going to
> be rushed and do a haphazard job for you. And presumably, if we do the
> review in an efficient way, a lot of that time can be used in
> responding to our comments.
>
> Ultimately, I’ve been doing this dozens of times a year for many years
> and **I** don’t think there is a panacea. I don’t think you (or I) are
> a slow learner. Instead I think that “just right” varies by working
> group and spec. And my main concern is: that our WG have enough time
> to do a good job for you, but not bog you down in an ocean of
> pointless process.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Addison
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/
>
> *From:*Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2016 2:37 PM
> *To:* Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>; Richard Ishida, Staff
> Contact, i18n WG <ishida@w3.org>
> *Cc:* public-socialweb@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Reviewing Social Web Specs
>
> On 06/24/2016 05:00 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
>
> Hello Sandro,
>
> Thank you for this note. I’ll be updating our review radar [1]
> shortly with this information.
>
>
> Thanks, Addison
>
>
> Do you have specific schedules or deadlines for any of these
> documents that we should be mindful of?
>
>
> Our only hard deadline is the group will be shutting down at the end
> of the year. I have fantasies of PR at the end of the summer. So,
> obviously, the sooner the better, if we're to have a chance to do
> anything about it.
>
>
> I suspect that we will want to review all of these. I must point
> out that reviewing a document that is already in CR or with very
> short time before CR is not ideal. Please consider requesting
> reviews closer to FPWD in the future.
>
>
> But they're not stable, then. I guess in theory we could try to
> notice, for each of our many specs, when we're down to issues that
> somehow don't bear on i18n, and then ask for i18n review, then notice
> when we're down to issues that somehow don't bear on a11y and then ask
> for a11y review, and so on with each kind of horizontal review for
> each spec... I've been through this a dozen times in as many
> years, and I've still no idea how to do it, other than wait until all
> the issues are closed. Perhaps I'm a slow learner.
>
> MEANWHILE, that reminds me, we did notice one i18n issue with AS2,
> which I wrote to Richard about on May 10. In retrospect, I should
> have included a larger list of recipients. I wrote:
>
>
>
> The Social Web WG expects to have 2-5 specs going to CR in the
> next two months.
>
> One of them has an I18N issue we noticed. The others, none yet.
>
> The issue we notice is in Activity Steams. This is basically a
> syndication format/vocabulary, for people to publish what they've
> been doing online. Liking things, checking in at locations,
> unfriending people, etc. It includes a standard vocabulary for
> common things, but anticipates lots of extensions.
>
> It uses a constrained subset of JSON-LD as its syntax. So that
> limits how it can encode lang information. And within the JSON-LD
> limitations, we've chosen some more limitations. Specifically,
> we've allowed exactly one way to provide lang tags. It looks
> like this:
>
> No language tag:
>
> { ...
> "content":"A <i>simple</i> note"
> }
>
> With language tags:
>
> {...
> "contentMap":{
> "en":"A <i>simple</i> note",
> "sp":"Una <i>simple</i> nota"
> }
> }
>
> This should work, but it does not allow any kind of defaults. Any
> property that doesn't use a lang map has no language information.
> Unfortunately we're unable to find any reasonable way to allow
> defaults.
>
> See discussion at
> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-02-minutes#Issue_251
>
>
> Hoping that helps,
>
> -- Sandro
>
>
> Best regards (for I18N),
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
>
> Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)
>
> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
>
> It is an architecture.
>
> *From:*Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 24, 2016 12:46 PM
> *To:* Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
> <mailto:addison@lab126.com>; Richard Ishida, Staff Contact, i18n
> WG <ishida@w3.org> <mailto:ishida@w3.org>
> *Cc:* public-socialweb@w3.org <mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Reviewing Social Web Specs
>
> I'm writing on behalf of the Social Web WG. Some of our specs are
> now stable, and if we would value a review from your group at your
> earliest convenience. While our primary use cases are often
> framed in terms of social media and blogging, the technologies may
> be broadly applicable.
>
> So far we have three specs in or near CR:
>
> * *Webmention* lets you tell a website you're linking to it.
> This supports ad hoc federation of sites
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/webmention/
>
> * *Activity Streams* (2.0) is a standard (and extensible) way
> to share a stream of what people do online (eg, "liking",
> posting a photo, etc)
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
>
> * *Micropub* provides a standard Web API to create and control
> posts on your own website
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/micropub/
>
>
> Additionally:
>
> * *Social Web Protocols*: provides an overview, including an
> explanation for how the parts fit (and sometimes do not fit)
> together. This document does not currently have any normative
> content.
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/
>
>
> There are other documents not yet ready for horizontal review.
> You'll see them linked from Social Web Protocols, and we'll send
> another email when they're in or near CR.
>
> Note that the group is producing multiple stacks which are not
> entirely compatible, reflecting the fragmentation in this space.
> Basically, we decided having multiple competing specs, while not
> an ideal situation, would still be a step forward.
>
> If you think your group will be doing a review, please reply-all
> and let us know your timeframe. We'd very much appreciate the
> actual review comments being raised as issues on the repo for each
> particular spec (linked in the title section), and then a
> high-level email or summary issue stating when the review is complete.
>
> Please feel free to share this call-for-review with anyone likely
> to be interested.
>
> Thank you!
>
> -- Sandro Hawke, Staff Contact, W3C Social Web Working Group
>
Received on Saturday, 25 June 2016 00:24:57 UTC