Notes from teleconf 2004-09-23

Notes from IRC log:

<MJDuerst> their group page: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/
<MJDuerst> looking at issues 501, 503, and 504 as they came back from the 
XML Protocol WG
<Tex> internationalization should not be optional; if so, applications will 
be created that will not be able to
<Tex> be retrofitted for global use and will by default exclude some markets.
<Tex> there are some minimal reqs that should be met.- charset, lang, 
locale (if applicable) should be minimally req'd
<Tex> in response to http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x503
<avine> For Point #7, we should specify that the charset and lang 
information be included as basic int'l info
<avine> content-type and content-lang headers
<avine> I will re-write to say that
<avine> I think there should be some statement about errors, even just to 
say that they are the prerogative of the individual application.
<Tex> for point 8
<Tex> if error protocol is not prescribed it is likely to lead to 
interoperability problems.
<Tex> this is not necessarily an i18n problem. however, it is likely that 
non-i18n solutions will be used
<Tex> and perhaps become defacto standards.
<Tex> The spec should cover basic error handling requirements at least, and 
prescribe recommended ways to address them
<Tex> If there are scenarios that do not require response, even if the 
request is an error
<Tex> then that can be one of the scenarios.
<Tex> But the fact that some scenarios do not require an error response is 
not a good argument for not
<Tex> prescribing how to address error responses
<Tex> (pardon the multiple negatives there)
<avine> OK, got it
<avine> discussion of issue 501, lots of problems with this response
<MJDuerst> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x501
<Tex> after decoding base 64, what char encoding do we have?
<MJDuerst> MJD: If we can't get them to disallow base64-ing text, we should 
at least request that they strongly discourage it.
<Tex> They give examples, and that is fine if there is one answer or all 
answers agree.
<MJDuerst> Also, they then have to make sure that their test suite covers 
all these cases.
<Tex> But it needs to be said what the precedence rules are and they are 
not prescribed
<Tex> for the values they give. (mime vs http, etc.)
<Tex> there should be a clear set of rules specified, and not left for 
users to guess how it might work
<Tex> based on analogies with other specs
<MJDuerst> They should say that the priorities are the same as for http as 
such.
<Tex> perhaps. I am not such a fan of the http/html rules, but i guess 
consistency is the best way to go at this point
<MJDuerst> Andrea: about all the ways to indicate charset: don't tell us, 
we know, tell your spec readers
<avine> MJD If they aren't able to forbid base64 for text, then they should 
at least provide several test cases that we can look at
<avine> Tex & Andrea: XMLP seems to think that base64 is solving all of 
their i18n problems
<MJDuerst> zakim, help
<Zakim> Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more 
detailed help.
<MJDuerst> andrea, can you please look at 
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
<MJDuerst> the IRI examples seem to be very strang
<MJDuerst> s/strang/strange/
* avine has quit (Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
* Tex (tex@216.145.49.17) has left #i18n
<Zakim> -avine
<Zakim> -Martin
<Zakim> I18N_WSTF()7:00PM has ended

Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 01:28:11 UTC