- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:41:46 +0900
- To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <43F9569A.4060105@w3.org>
Hi all,
The minutes of our "editors call" are at
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html
and as text below.
I would suggest: If you have anything about "word smithing": bring it up
during the week via mail and suggest it for the editor's call. We will
see if we will gather enough for the call.
Cheers,
Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
i18n ITS working group (edit)
17 Feb 2006
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0130.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-irc
Attendees
Present
Christian, Diane, Felix, Yves
Regrets
Chair
Yves
Scribe
Felix
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2881
2. [6]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2882
3. [7]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2883
4. [8]techniques document
5. [9]general: this meeting
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
[11]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2881
[11] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2881
Christian: these three bugs are related to feedback from Felix
... concerning changes to the latest draft
<chriLi>
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
188.html
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0188.html
Christian: this bug is related to the abstract
... Felix said he liked the change
... but he proposed to have a discussion on this on the group
... the rewording says that ITS tagset has to do with quality and
cost efficiency
Yves: I looked at it and did not see any problem
[13]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/
[13] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/
<scribe> .. new standard says that we are talking about a standard
... I am not sure if this is o.k.
... I changed the references to new and existing schemas and
instances
Yves: the only comment I have:
... we have to make sure that we have to separate the paragraph
about feedback
Felix: current abstract is very short, but if we take the longer
version, to have this separate is a good idea
Diane: it does not necessarily need the part "one hand ..."
... so take out "one one hand"
... instead of "on the other hand", say "in addition"
Yves: my concern with "high quality" etc.
... sounds like marketing
... they are buzzwords
Christian: the point to me was
... a lot of W3C work is related to i18n and l10n
Yves: one aspect is the commonality we are trying to have
... with ITS across the different XML standards
Christian: so how about:
... this document standardizes ...
... internationalization and localization of XML document and
schemas
Yves: sounds good
<scribe> ACTION: editors to integrate abstract changes into odd
[recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
[15]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2882
[15] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2882
Yves: section 1.1., see
[16]http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/#d2e154
[16] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060222/#d2e154
Christian: this making available in additional languages
... this is only one facet of localization
... I made a change of the first paragraph to "made available in
additional languages or adapted
with regard to other cultural aspects."
christian: the second change talkes about internationalization
... which says that it is up-front work for localization
Diane: the only thing I see is
... instead of "so-called source language"
... have "source language"
Yves: I like the word "feasibility"
... because it expresses that you often cannot localize, if there is
no proper internationlization before
<chriLi> Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency requires up-front
work before localization starts
Yves: up-front seems to be redundant
<chriLi> Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency require work
before localization starts
Yves: the rest would be o.k.
Diane: " Feasibility, quality, and cost efficiency require work
before localization starts"
Yves: I still don't see the big difference to the existing paragraph
... is there an extra concept that we are adding or removing?
<YvesS>
[17]http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html
[17] http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html
keep it like:
[[[From the viewpoints of feasibility, cost, and efficiency, it is
important that the original material should be suitable for
localization. This is achieved by appropriate design and
development, and the corresponding process is referred to as
internationalization. For a detailed explanation of the terms
"localization" and "internationalization", see [l10n i18n].]]]
Yves: but we did change s.t on the first paragraph
<scribe> ACTION: editors to make changes in sec. 1.1 [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
[19]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2883
[19] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2883
<YvesS> original = [[The data categories and their implementation as
a schema does not address document-external mechanisms or data
formats for describing localization-relevant information over and
above what is appropriate for inclusion in the format itself. Such
mechanisms and data formats, also sometimes called XML Localization
Properties, are out of the scope of this document. However, this
document specifies a methodology how localization properties and
information a
<YvesS> ]]
Christian: I found this rather abstract
... I wondered: what does it mean: what is approriate for inclusion
in the format?
... IMO, what we don't do
... we don't define a general format
... but we define information which can be used for such a format
Yves: I agree with Christian here
Felix: "possibly may be implemented by the
framework put forth in this standard.
"
<chriLi> possibly may be at least partically implemented by the
framework put forth in this standard
Diane: take however and possibly out
Felix: I would propose: "These mechanisms ...
... may be implemented based on parts of the framework put forth in
this standard"
Diane: it sounds right to me
Yves: I think Christian was describing a different idea, but now we
have both ideas
techniques document
<YvesS> [20]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601Techniques
[20] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601Techniques
<scribe> ACTION: editors to change out of scope section [recorded in
[21]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
Yves: I described the techniques from 2 different viewpoints
... 1: schema developers
... 2: authors
... it makes things clearer for the user
... I tried to suggest pointers to ITS markup in the tagset document
... there is not the complete list of requirements here yet
Christian: are we lacking one group of persons?
... what are developers?
Felix: the charter talks about schema and specification developers
Christian: the document rules we have now:
... they are a tool to organize workflows
... e.g. saying "this bit of content goes into localization"
... should that be addressed?
... as for content authors:
... maybe also translators would benefit from the techniques
... they may need to specify the language of the content
Yves: the translator *is* a content author
Felix: so make clear that "content author" encompasses translator
Diane: who is the guy who is between the author and translator?
yves: e.g. the guy who defines the rule set
... but we want to avoid such tasks, right?
Felix: the tagset document might be useful for engineers
Yves: here we are talking about techniques
... if you have a way to override translatability information
[22]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechTransAuth
[22] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechTransAuth
Yves: this is an example of how to use ITS tagset
Christian: I see an overlap between techniques and ITS tagset
... in the specification, we have a non-normative modularization in
certain schemas
... if we would say "use this module in your own schema"
... this would be a different way of guidance
<YvesS> [23]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev
[23] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev
Christian: we could integrate xml:lang in to ITS , see
[24]http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev
[24] http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0601TechLangDev
Yves: the example of xml:lang is a good one
... I am wondering if it should be in the spec, or in the guidelines
Felix: we could take examples out of the ITS tagset document, and
see what we reuse for the techniques document
Yves: it would be bad if we would take all examples out of the
tagset document
... I'll try to take into account "translator" as part of the
"content author"
... I don't know of the other guy
... that is the work we do here
... we get raw documents, and try to make them work for the
translator
general: this meeting
yves: this meeting is discussion
... if we do not have anything on the techniques, that is not so
bad, but we need to make progress on the tagset document
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: editors to change out of scope section [recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to integrate abstract changes into odd
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: editors to make changes in sec. 1.1 [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2006/02/17-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version 1.127
([29]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/02/20 05:36:51 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 05:41:56 UTC