[1]W3C [1] http://www.w3.org/ i18n ITS wg 12 Oct 2005 [2]Agenda [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0008.html See also: [3]IRC log [3] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-irc Attendees Present Andrzej, Christian, Felix, Richard, Sebastian, Yves Regrets Diane, Najib, Tim Chair Yves Scribe Felix Contents * [4]Topics 1. [5]Action items 2. [6]discussions on Scoping (and Extensibility) 3. [7]On extensibility 4. [8]f2f preparation 5. [9]other business 6. [10]next meeting * [11]Summary of Action Items _________________________________________________________________ Action items ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion) (pending) recorded in [12]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action01] ACTION: FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under development (done) [recorded in [13]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action02] ACTION: FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on a wiki on xml:lang for the i18n core WG) (done) [recorded in [14]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action03] [15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0026.html [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0026.html ACTION: FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft (done) [recorded in [16]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action04] ACTION: SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects of the TEI (done) [recorded in [17]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action05] [18]http://www.tei-c.org/I18N/i18n-talk.pdf [18] http://www.tei-c.org/I18N/i18n-talk.pdf SR: I got useful comments from CL to put in tonight ... I need a prose version for that ... it will be presented at the annual members meeting of TEI in Bulgaria and for a workshop on TEI in Germany ACTION: SR to put a comment on [19]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki (pending) recorded in [20]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action06] [19] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements SR: still pending, work on odd desiderata from FS have more priority [21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0038.html [21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0038.html ACTION: YS to list possible constraints and values for them (done) recorded in [22]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action07] Yves: CL proposed to integrate white space constraints ... the container size constrained seems to be related to display ... but buffer length seems to be the valid constraint at our level SR: Why wouldn't you mandate char? Yves: Would like to do that, but ... if you have some restrictions from your programming language, that might not work What about sht. like a namespace-related "URI constraint"? We may have to say '[23]http://ww.y.com/de' may never be changed to '[24]http://ww.y.com/de' [23] http://ww.y.com/de' [24] http://ww.y.com/de' SR: combination of length and encoding might be difficult YS: very valid point ... how about white space, CL? CL: no, nothing more Correction: What about sht. like a namespace-related "URI constraint"? We may have to say 'xmlns="[25]http://ww.y.com/de"' may never be changed to 'xmlns="[26]http://ww.y.com/en"' [25] http://ww.y.com/de [26] http://ww.y.com/en CL: this is on a meta level ... maybe its related to indicator of translatability ... on the constraints again, I tried to check XLIFF again ... I did not find anything more - which is good ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template (pending) [recorded in [27]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action08] ACTION: CL to post more notes on Scoping (done) [recorded in [28]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action09] discussions on Scoping (and Extensibility) [29]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping [29] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping YS: currently two main ideas ... one is to use translateYes and translateNo with XPath expressions ... or translate with various values and a separate scope attribute ... two main opinions: use translateYes / translateNo, or the @translate attribute ... we should decide soon, to be able to go to wd CL: this touches on all data categories we discuss ... e.g. also for ruby, term markup ... indicator of translatability is a particular problematic case ... because we have a different understanding what needs to be captured: ... we have to say "you have to do s.t. about this, and nothing about this" ... doing scoping by means of XPath, I found another argument to use translateYes and translateNo YS: how could we reach consensus? CL: a first part would be to say: the general approach is to have an attribute like @dir and a scope attribute like @dirScope ... the same works with @ruby and @rubyScope and other requirements ... the second question is what to do with translatability YS: explains the scope discussion to AZ example from Yves: 456 translateScope="e/@a" YS: if you take the full document, it is possible to say different things about 2 attributes at the same element ... that would allow us to have different values CL: this looks elegant translateScope="../e/@a"> scribe: I'm just wondering about the root element CL: should we take an action item about a root element case? YS: using XPath seems to be original We would need to look at two special case: root element with children, root element without children ACTION: felix to summarize the discussion of the scope wiki, look at root elements with / without children, and if there are no more comments, to put it into odd [recorded in [30]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action10] YS: the content of "." could be identical to translate="yes" CL: we added many things, not only translatability: translate (yes | no) #IMPLIED translateNoScope %scope; #IMPLIED translateYes %scope; #IMPLIED translateNo %scope; #IMPLIED locinfo (yes) #IMPLIED locinfoScope %scope; #IMPLIED isTerm (yes) #IMPLIED isTermScope %scope; #IMPLIED ruby (yes) #IMPLIED rubyScope %scope; #IMPLIED dir CDATA #IMPLIED dirScope %scope; #IMPLIED lingInfo CDATA #IMPLIED lingInfoScope %scope; #IMPLIED equiv CDATA #IMPLIED " > CL: should we put that into the first wd FS: I think it is a good idea YS: I think so too [31]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecExtensibility [31] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecExtensibility ACTION: felix to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into odd / xmlspec recorded in [32]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action11] On extensibility CL: distinction between providing more values, or another namespace YS: that are two different things, yes ... the namespace approach has the advantage that it is easier to distinct between ITS and extensions SR: People can put in their own private namespaces, and we have no problem with that CL: let's look at the attribute "indicator of translatability" ... I wonder how ITS may be able to evolve if people need more than "yes" and "no" FS:Sperberg-McQueen proposes to give examples for extensibility, in different schema languages YS: is there a value of extensions like translate-extension? SR: it depends ... a general container like ITS other would be suitable maybe - is that your idea, CL? CL: I thought: do we see a need for extensibility? ... if yes, we should decide which mechanism we use SR: I like the attitude of Sperberg-McQueen (mentioned by FS) of giving examples AZ: the confusion comes from the real need for extensions for XLIFF ... with ITS, this is a different area CL: for many data categories, we already know that we don't need extension, e.g. bidi ... so what should we do? Just follow Sperberg-McQueen by giving examples? AZ: Yes FS: gives some examples for extension mechanisms in w3c wgs CL: we should give that into the wd? we don't have extensibility, but you could use e.g. namespaces ACTION: put extensibility in the wd in the way discussed in this teleconf [recorded in [33]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action12] f2f preparation YS: how will be at the meeting FS: will leave on last day of f2f around noon or before? YS: NP CR: abingdon is the town ... close to Oxford near Didcot we will have enough cars, I guess YS: put more information as soon as possible other business CL: AZ, you gave a talk in France? Is there a presentation to share? AZ: Yes, it is in French ... will send a copy to the group ... I gave a similar presentation at xml 2004 in Washington next meeting next week, same channel Bye everybody Bye Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: felix to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into odd / xmlspec [recorded in [34]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action11] [NEW] ACTION: felix to summarize the discussion of the scope wiki, look at root elements with / without children, and if there are no more comments, to put it into odd [recorded in [35]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action10] [NEW] ACTION: put extensibility in the wd in the way discussed in this teleconf [recorded in [36]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action12] [PENDING] ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion) [recorded in [37]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action01] [PENDING] ACTION: SR to put a comment on [38]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki recorded in [39]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action06] [PENDING] ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template [recorded in [40]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action08] [38] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements [DONE] ACTION: CL to post more notes on Scoping [recorded in [41]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action09] [DONE] ACTION: FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under development [recorded in [42]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action02] [DONE] ACTION: FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on a wiki on xml:lang for the i18n core WG) [recorded in [43]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action03] [DONE] ACTION: FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft [recorded in [44]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action04] [DONE] ACTION: SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects of the TEI [recorded in [45]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action05] [DONE] ACTION: YS to list possible constraints and values for them [recorded in [46]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action07] [End of minutes] _________________________________________________________________ Minutes formatted by David Booth's [47]scribe.perl version 1.127 ([48]CVS log) $Date: 2005/10/13 03:51:11 $ [47] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm [48] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/