- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:23:58 +0900
- To: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Hi all, > > - FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under > development. I did that in a recent mail. > [PENDING] > > - FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on a wiki on > xml:lang for the i18n core WG) Do I have to need more than described in http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag? IT says that the attribute specifies the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document. And: "The intent declared with xml:lang is considered to apply to all attributes and content of the element where it is specified, unless overridden with an instance of xml:lang on another element within that content." > [PENDING] > > - FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the > ITS specification Working Draft. > [PENDING] proposal: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/its > > > Discussion > ========== > > - We discussed the Scoping issue > <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping>. CL noted that using an > Xpath-based system would solve > addressing the attributes. YS pointed out that XPath could lead to > complicated expressions referring to parts outside the elements > where the ITS information would be. CL mentioned the possibility to > restrict the XPath expressions allowed. A reasonable restriction would be the pattern of xslt (I added this comment also to the scope req wiki. > CL to post more notes on > the wiki, YS to summarize on email to generate discussion. > CL also noted that other standards (e.g. in OASIS) may run into the same > issues. How do they address it? YS noted that maybe XSL-FO > could be a good place to look. To look for what? > > - We discussed the Extensibility issue > <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecExtensibility>. CL summarized the > decision we had to > make: do we want to allow extensibility. If yes, to what document's > parts would we allow it? > CL also noted that he would look in UBL about the issue. > > > Other Business > ============== > > - We briefly discuss the F2F meeting. RI posted a note about the > possibilities near Oxford > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0004.html> > > CL mentioned that the SAP standard group would be willing to sponsor > another F2F, and noted that some are asking when we will have > some material ready. As I said in a mail before: Let's publish a first wd within October. I propose for the next teleconf a topic whether we should commit ourself to this goal, so that people like CL can give a goal to their managment - that they allow them to participate in the working group longer ;) Best, Felix > YS noted that we are more or less on schedule so far. YS will ask RI for > template on the Techniques pages. > > - Next teleconference is Oct-12, same time, same channel. > > > ACTION ITEMS for next week > ========================== > > - [PENDING] CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability > implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion > (FS+SR)). > > - [PENDING] FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing > / under development. > > - [PENDING] FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on > a wiki on xml:lang for the i18n core WG) > > - [PENDING] FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the > namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft. > > - [PENDING] SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects > of the TEI. > > - [PENDING] SR to put a comment on > http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki. > > - [PENDING] YS to list possible constraints and values for them. > > - [NEW] YS to ask RI for techniques template. > > - [NEW] CL to post more notes on Scoping. > > > Cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 06:24:51 UTC