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

RE: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:31:06 -0600
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003c01c6d75a$652f3960$9b05a8c0@Breizh>

Hi Richard, Sebastian,

Refering to today's discussion about changing "Transltability" to "Translate"

I've been looking at the document and it seems "Translate" will be a bit difficult. The main reason is that it is a verb, not a
noun. All the other data categories are nouns, and when trying to change to "translate" or (more often) "translate data category"
the text looks often very awkward.

Again, I wonder if "Translate information" would be better?
I was wondering also if capitalizing the first word of the data catgory names would help (in general)?

Any thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:45 AM
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability

The i18n Core WG still feels that 'translatability' is incorrect for describing this data category, since it is typically used to
describe whether something has been enabled for translation, rather than whether something should be translated or not.

We would like the ITS group to consider one more time whether this can be changed.

Suggested alternatives:
Translate flag
Translate switch
Translate information
Translate directive


Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: 11 September 2006 01:53
> To: ishida@w3.org
> Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org; public-i18n-core@w3.org; 
> public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Comment on ITS WD] Translatability
> Hello i18n core,
> This is a reply on behalf of the i18n ITS working group. See also
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3481 for our discussion 
> .
> Thank you very much for your comment. We propose not to change the 
> name of the data category, and keep "translatability".
> Please let us know within 2 weeks if you are satisfied. If we don't 
> hear  from you , we will assume this issue as closed.
> Regards,
> Felix
> ishida@w3.org wrote:
> > Comment from the i18n review of:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/
> > 
> > Comment 5
> > At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
> > Editorial/substantive: E
> > Owner: RI
> > 
> > Location in reviewed document:
> > 6.2
> > 
> > Comment: 
> > 'Translatability' is not a good term for this, since it is
> already used in the sense of internationalization to allow for easy 
> translation. Perhaps "Translation information" would be better, and 
> more consistent with other data category titles.
> > 
> > 
> > FS: The first ITS WD already talks about "translatabilty". 
> So does the requirements document
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-itsreq-20050805/#transinfo . 
> Given this long history of the term which you must be aware of, I 
> disagree with your request to change it. I also disagree with your 
> argument of consistency with other data
> categories: Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a subset 
> of data categories, see also the conformance section which separates 
> data categories. Hence, consistency of naming is not so important, but 
> rather consistency between ITS working drafts, implementations, 
> presentations, ... .
> > 
> > 
> > I18n: There is no need to be consistent in this regard with
> past working drafts. People should expect Working Drafts to change, as 
> described in the status section. There is a much greater need to go 
> forward with appropriate terminology.
> > 
> > 
> > We don't see that this is a difficult change to make. 
> > 
> > 
> > "Our envisaged users are likely to focus only on a subset
> of data categories" We believe this is irrelevant to appropriate 
> naming of a given data category, but in addition I don't think you are 
> proposing that the 'translatability'
> category will always be usedindependently of other implementations, so 
> I don't think this argument holds.
> > 
> > 
> > We may be prepared to accept that 'Translation Information' 
> is too vague. Alternative suggestions for the title are 'Translate 
> Information' or 'Translate Directive'.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 17:31:17 UTC

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