mgm Comments on I18n Usage Scenarios, 4.0 - 4.1.3.3

Here are my comments, interspersed with Andrea's for easy reading.

    Mike____


A. Vine wrote:

>
> All,
> My comments on Usage Scenario sections 4.0 - 4.1.3.3.
> Andrea
>
> 4.1.1
> ------
> Switching back and forth from "locale neutral" to "language neutral" 
> is confusing and will make people think that they are 
> interchangeable.  If we want to take on both cases, we should talk 
> about them both and explain the the terms. 

4.1.1

    Agree with Andrea re: language neutral and locale-neutral.  Stick
    with locale neutral as in the main bullets of 4.1
    2+2=4 in every locale.

>
> 4.1.1.1
> -------
> We should clarify that this example implies there are no returned 
> error messages or responses with any verbiage. 

4.1.1.1

    "Time of day, although it is presented with different formats around
    the world, is measured the same way everywhere and a standardized
    single frame of reference is available to be used."
           maybe change to:
    Time of day, although it is presented with different formats and
    perhaps different calendars around the world, if using a
    standardized method is measured the same way everywhere and a single
    frame of reference is available to be used.

    "... including shifting the time into the local time zone."
           maybe change to
    "... including shifting the time into the local time zone or even a
    local calendar, e.g., Arabic or a Japanese imperial calendar.

4.1.1.2

    ... does not require extra locale information ...

4.1.1.3

    No additional locale attributes or information are required for this
    pattern a locale neutral service.


> 4.1.2
> -----
>
> "This may be due to how the service's code is written, how the 
> provider is configured ..." => awk, how about
> "This may be due to the way the service's code is written, the 
> provider's configuration ...", or,
> "This may be due to the way the service's code is written, the way the 
> provider is configured ..." 

4.1.2

    ... the service provides a specific localized set of behaviors ... 
    => how about
    ... the service provides a set of specific localized behaviors ...

>
>
> 4.1.2.1
> ------- 

This is not really that huge of an example.  But we could simplify it - 
order processing in local language only, one and only one service/wsdl 
provided per locale due to locale processing limitations.

Add "GetProductInventory" as a name for the service.  See notes to 4.1.3.1

>
> Note:  Alcohol is a risky example, due to cultural attitudes to 
> alcohol in some parts of the world.  I suggest something less 
> controversial, say, office objects, or vegetarian food items, or 
> simple household objects.  How about noodles?  The US item could be 
> "egg noodles", the German one "Spätzle", and the Japanese one "udon". 
> (Can you tell I'm hungry?) 

    I've got a good example I use: "wrench".  Tools (and vegetables) are
    great because they really are different between almost every locale.
    Here are a few translations:

        en-US   wrench
        en-GB   spanner
        de-DE   Schlüssel
        hu-HU   csavarkulcs
        jp-JA   <???>

    descriptions could be "torque wrench", "monkey wrench", etc. 
    Replace "beer" with "tool" or "noodle".

    Are there still systems with 7-bit ASCII (answer: Cobol is still
    alive :-( )

>
>
> "... part number, quantity, language, description, size, list price."
>                                                         ^and
> "If all of the information was maintained ..." =>
> "If all of the information is maintained ..." or, less preferable,
> "If all of the information were maintained ..." (yes, English has a 
> subjunctive/conditional tense)
>
> "budweiser" => "Budweiser" (but again I strongly advise against 
> alcohol in any example)
> "kirin" => "Kirin"
>
> " ... it's capabilities are limited ..." => "its"
>
> " ... the service could still not offer product from ... "
>                                                ^s 

4.1.2.2

    It is unclear from the introduction to this section that you have
    one and only one service/wsdl per supported locale.  Perhaps we
    should make a simple statement to that fact.

4.1.3

    "... locale preferences specified by the user ... user's ...." 
    maybe change to "... locale preferences specified by the client. ...
    client's ..."  The client my be human, or it may be another
    application or service.  Ultimately, there is a human somewhere at
    the end-point,  but I prefer "client" for these descriptions.

    "The service should therefore provide a way for the user's client's
    locale preferences to be communicated to the service and, if there
    is a response, the actual locale values used to perform the
    processing should be returned to the client."

>
>
> 4.1.3.1
> -------
> " ... with Japanese language description."
>                                         ^s
>
> "web" => "Web" (throughout doc) 

    "GetProductInventory" does not appear anywhere else in the doc.  It
    looks like it is refering to the example in 4.1.2.1.  Therefore, we
    should add "GetProductInventory" to 4.1.2.1 example.

    Same comment on "user" vs. "client"

>
>
> 4.1.3.2
> -------

    "... The request must allow at least one preference (e.g., jp-JA)
    and should allow multiple preferences (e.g., jp-JA, de-DE, en-US) to
    be passed, ..."

> "Really this is something the provider should provide, ..." need to 
> clarify why this is so, even if it's a reference to another section in 
> the doc. 

    (nit) I would remove "Really"


-- 
Michael McKenna
Globalisation Architect
mgm@globalisation.org

California Digital Library
University of California Office of the President
michael.mckenna@ucop.edu
http://www.cdlib.org