Re: 1st Working Draft of Authoring Techniques for XHTML & HTML Internationalization Published

I think we need some usability tests to resolve this... It isn't an
architectural difference of opinion.
Also need an enumeration of the different "scenarios" that need addressing.

Should be a fun discussion, next time we get together.
;-)

tex


Martin Duerst wrote:
> 
> I'm with Addison on this one. ISO 8601 for machines,
> something more readable for end users.
> 
> And I like Addison's summary below a lot.
> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> At 14:37 04/04/10 -0700, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
> 
> >Month names don't necessarily require more localization effort: APIs
> >generally have them built in. It's a question of matching format, input,
> >etc. together most effectively/efficiently.
> >
> >At webMethods I've always decreed an ISO 8601-like format for logs and
> >administrative applications, but the usability ginks get (rightly) annoyed
> >when I try to do so for non-technical user interfaces.
> >
> >Like most internationalization problems, the answer to any question begins
> >with the phrase "Well, it depends...", so I guess I'm with Tex on this one.
> >The presentation of "month" should be joined with considerations for the
> >audience in presenting the value.
> >
> >I recognize that the section isn't fully baked, so my criticism should
> >probably be reserved. If we wait for everything to be perfect we'll never
> >publish anything.....
> >
> >Personally I favor:
> >
> >  - static text for non-technical audiences, use the "long" form (least
> >ambiguous) for the locale
> >      January 2, 1980
> >  - input fields for non-technical audiences, use popup controls and a
> >shorter form
> >      [ Jan 2, 1980 ] (click in field to get popup calendar)
> >  - use separate fields when they cannot be avoided, but note the additional
> >effort for localizers
> >      [January v][02 v][1980 v]
> >  - preferably use 8601 format whenever possible for both static and input
> >text, lists, etc.
> >      1980-01-02
> >  - and whenever possible avoid user input of dates as text
> >      see http://www.inter-locale.com/CodesetTesting4.jsp (although the demo
> >is a bit hard to understand at the moment, i18n folks will probably
> >understand the problem.....)
> >
> >But that's just me. I'm interested to hear other's thoughts.
> >
> >Addison
> >
> >Addison P. Phillips
> >Director, Globalization Architecture
> >webMethods | Delivering Global Business Visibility
> >http://www.webMethods.com
> >Chair, W3C Internationalization (I18N) Working Group
> >Chair, W3C-I18N-WG, Web Services Task Force
> >http://www.w3.org/International
> >
> >Internationalization is an architecture.
> >It is not a feature.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-i18n-geo-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-i18n-geo-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tex Texin
> > > Sent: samedi 10 avril 2004 00:33
> > > To: aphillips@webmethods.com
> > > Cc: Martin Duerst; Richard Ishida; 'Jungshik Shin';
> > > public-i18n-geo@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: 1st Working Draft of Authoring Techniques for XHTML & HTML
> > > Internationalization Published
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With respect to date format and month names:
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/i18n-html-tech/#ri20030510.103018444
> > >
> > > We should not publish strategies which aren't either established
> > > i18n practices
> > > or derived from standards, at least not without a clear warning.
> > > Are there any
> > > references for the month name approach?
> > >
> > > I agree with Jungshik and prefer the ISO 8601 approach with all
> > > numbers and
> > > haven't run into a situation where it was considered ambiguous
> > > with a 4 digit
> > > year. If there is ambiguity, provide an indicator (such as
> > > "yyyy-mm-dd") or a
> > > footnote on the page.
> > >
> > > Using month names increases the localization effort and therefore
> > > runs against
> > > internationalization.
> > >
> > > ISO 8601 is also recommended in the W3C date time note
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-datetime
> > > and many other places, and is not mentioned in the guidelines (yet).
> > >
> > > I would prefer we endorsed 8601 as the first choice, and offered textual
> > > alternatives as a last resort (or not at all).
> > >
> > > My 2 yen.
> > > tex

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
                         
XenCraft		            http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 04:57:01 UTC