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

Hi Ralph,

Given that our teleconferences are Thursday mornings (Pacific time), it will be at least a week before we would submit comments to DWBP-WG. Say the 22nd for us to file issues?

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Swick [mailto:swick@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:42 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>; Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>;
> Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>; hadley@linkedgov.org; yaso@nic.br;
> deirdre@derilinx.com
> Cc: public-i18n-core@w3.org; adler1@us.ibm.com
> Subject: 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.htm
> > l [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 20:34:33 UTC