- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:52:48 +0900
- To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44BBB250.7020007@w3.org>
... are at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/17-i18nits-minutes.html
and below as text.
- Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
i18n ITS working group
17 Jul 2006
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0069.html
Attendees
Present
Felix, Richard, Yves
Regrets
Christian
Chair
Yves
Scribe
Felix
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]four mails from i18n core
2. [5]issue 5
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3469
3. [6]issue 6 at
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3468
4. [7]issue 7 at
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467
5. [8]issue 8 at
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466
6. [9]xml:lang issue (again)
* [10]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
four mails from i18n core
see topic items 1-4 at
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0
069.html
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JulSep/0069.html
Yves: everbody at the last call agreed in leaving them to the
editors
... so we skip over them now, to gain some time
Richard: sounds good to me
Felix: me as well
issue 5 [12]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3469
[12] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3469
Yves: the wording regarding xml:lang
yves comment is at
[13]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3469#c1
[13] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3469#c1
Richard: we don't say in the spec that langRule points to s.t. which
is to be treated like xml:lang
Yves: you made that issues in other comments
Richard: So we should have a different wording for xml:lang ?
... we come back to this issue later, after addressing the other
xml:lang issue (see next topic)
issue 6 at [14]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3468
[14] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3468
Yves: you said that xml:lang should be in the ITS markup
... Sebastian had some discussion with you on that, Richard
Richard: Sebastian said "xml:lang comes with xml anyway"
... I said you have to declare it in your format
... depending on the schema language
Yves: I would add xml:lang here and to the rules element
Felix: might create an issue with being schema language independent
Richard: how about having a paragraph on that in the spec?
Yves: this needs more discussion probably, with Sebastian
issue 7 at [15]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467
[15] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3467
Yves: why did we do that?
Felix: this is about the global case, right?
Yves: yes, like locInfo
Felix: I agree, having it the same like locInfo
Yves: Richard, would you see this as an substantive change?
Richard: not sure
... I described some comments as substantive, but it depends on you
how you classify the changes
... this could go both ways
... a question on the content model of the ruby design: is it plain
text?
Felix: it is inline, like in the ruby TR
Yves: so resolution: we change to have an element instead of an
attribute
issue 8 at [16]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466
[16] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466
Yves: this is also about ruby
Richard: you cannot point to markup which does not match the RUBY TR
... that should be made explicit
... existing ruby markup is only the one which is conformant to the
TR
Felix: good comment, fine with that
Richard: another issue: does XHTML 1.1 need global rules?
... i.e., does one need to point to the ruby text?
Yves: from the ITS viewpoint it is not clear that it is ruby
Felix: it depends on what you want to process
... it is not against the ITS conformance criteria *not* to
associate xhtml 1.1. with ITS
Richard: it is maybe a best practice
... whether people should use these mechanisms
... the same is true for xml:lang
Yves: for me, it has to do with each vocabulary
... xml:lang is a different level
... you cannot say "every xml processor should know about ruby"
Felix: I am not sure about the consequences of a must. It might be
hard to test
Richard: what happens if we have a "should"?
Yves: we need more discussion
... as for ruby: we need to reword the paragraph which is after the
example, right?
... what about the xhtml 1.1. issue?
... you should map ruby to ITS, if it is possible, that is it,
right?
... we have an example of that with opendocument
... we could say "it is a best practice to associate as much as
possible
... but we cannot force you to associate everything"
xml:lang issue (again)
Yves: Felix, you agree that having the attribute would be a good
idea
... only the implemenation with RELAX NG is an issue
Felix: Is it a problem that other specs like XQuery use xml:lang
without ITS or schemas?
Yves: we could say "production rules cover only ITS attributes", for
others you may need other stuff like xml:lang
Felix: worried about the output of processing if we use xml:lang
Yves: it does not to be logical that an ITS processor has to be
aware of xml:lang
Felix: we might double functionality with existing specs like XQuery
... how about saying "please use xml:lang locally", and have
langRule if they don't use it
Yves: having xml:lang in the schemas is useful from the practical
viewpoint
... and an ITS processor should be aware of xml:lang
... how about removing the data category?
Felix: we have to continue we discussion
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version 1.127
([18]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/07/17 15:32:22 $
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 15:53:19 UTC