Re: I18N Objections concerning: RE: Transition Request: CR for Data on the Web Best Practices

Addison, thank you for the offer of quick turnaround.  What timeframe do 
you propose?

-Ralph

On 7/14/2016 3:06 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> Hello Phil, Ralph, and Philippe (with copies to DWBP chairs),
>
> I've been actioned by the I18N WG with responding to the below TransReq for the DWBP spec.
>
> At a high level, our Working Group feels that this particular spec is a case study in process failure.
>
> The I18N WG was aware of this specification, since Phil sent us a review request on 24 May [1]. The request had a deadline of 12 June--this is one of the specs that prompted my previous email to chairs@ about not having sufficient review time in review requests. This request occurred while we were already dealing with urgent review requests that had just come in for other specs, including Web Annotation, HTML5.1, and four Social Media specs (which we are still working on), and given the short date, we were unable to provide a review to meet the deadline.
>
> One of our WG members (Felix Sasaki) had filed an issue in our github issues previously. We failed to forward Felix's comment to the WG, which is a failure on our part that we are addressing. Felix also participated in some discussions with DWBP members at non-WG events [3] and it is not clear if his concerns raised there were addressed or not (it appears to me as if they might not have been). However, I would not characterize that as "[t]he Internationalization Activity were also invited to the second F2F meeting". Please note that this is not to say that we are blaming DWBP-WG for our failure to provide a review. However, we don't believe that involving I18N WG was considered sufficiently or at the right time in their process and the limited interactions we did have were not addressed.
>
> A cursory review of the item highlighted in the TransReq below suggests that section has I18N problems that should be addressed before the document progresses. In addition, scanning the document I see thing such as "Example 15" [2], which makes citations that our WG would not agree with and are not in accord with our Specdev "checklist" document (for self-checks) [4]. There are likely other examples. Thus, the I18N WG feels that a full review is needed.
>
> Therefore, we would like to request that the CR for DWBP be delayed until I18N can provide a review: we can provide a quick turn around and would be glad to work with the DWBP WG to resolve/address issues. Otherwise we feel that this document won't really represent the "best practices" for data on the web :-).
>
> Best regards (for I18N),
>
> Addison
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2016AprJun/0210.html
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/dwbp/#ReuseVocabularies
> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-core/2016Jul/0010.html
> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/international-specs/
> I18N-ACTION-539
>
> Addison Phillips
> Principal SDE, I18N Architect (Amazon)
> Chair (W3C I18N WG)
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>

Received on Thursday, 14 July 2016 19:42:34 UTC