W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > July to September 2006

[Bug 3460] Loc Info or Loc Note

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:46:47 +0000
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1G1Tcd-0007MA-E2@wiggum.w3.org>


           Summary: Loc Info or Loc Note
           Product: ITS
           Version: LastCall
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ITS tagset
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: ysavourel@translate.com
         QAContact: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Comment 12 of i18nCore comments:

Section 6.3.2: Is there any reason that locInfo is not called locNote - since
that is much more true to the meaning.

FS: The naming relies on the name of the data category. I don't think that your
proposal "locNote" is appropriate, since providing notes is *one* usage of this
data category. See a different usage described at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006AprJun/0107 (issue 4,
"With the localization information data type"), which (possibly automatically)
uses "localization information" for adding linking information between
different translation versions. Such links are certainly no "notes" and have a
different status than e.g. locn-note in the XMLSPEC i18n DTD, see example 20 at
http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#xmlspec . 

I18n: We think there is a serious risk of diluting the meaning of locInfo here
to the point that a translation tool, for example, doesn't know what to do with
the information pointed to. Pointing to previous translations should be another
data category in ITS v2, since the translation tool may well need to do
different things with this type of information. That's exactly why I wanted to
change the name of the data category - because localization information is too
broad a category to describe exactly what this is about. We need to be more
specific. Note that the requirements document [1] refers to this specifically
as Localization Notes. (If you are going to argue for consistency with that
document in comment 6, you should take it into account here, too. ;-)

So the key issue here is what exactly is the scope of the locInfo data
category. We feel it should be kept specifically to providing notes to
translators, and other similar mechanisms such as pointing to former
translations, should be considered more carefully in version 2, when they may
well be best implemented as a different data category altogether.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-itsreq-20060518/#locnotes 

We are raising the status of this comment to S.
Received on Friday, 14 July 2006 19:46:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:11 UTC