Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD

Refer to the comments at the bottom, please.

Is 'e.g.' or e.g.,' correct?

Kind regards,
Naoto

1 Introduction

*This section is informative.*

The ITS 2.0 specification both[NN1] <#_msocom_1>  identifies concepts (such
as “Translate”) that are important for internationalization and
localization, and defines implementations of these concepts (termed “ITS
data categories”) as a set of elements and attributes called the
*Internationalization
Tag Set (ITS)*.

* *
1.2 Motivation for ITS

*…*

>From the viewpoints of feasibility, cost, and efficiency, it is important
that the original material should be suitable for localization. This is
achieved by appropriate design and development, and the corresponding
process is referred to as internationalization[NN2] <#_msocom_2> . For a
detailed explanation of the terms “localization” and
“internationalization”, see [l10n
i18n]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#geo-i18n-l10n>
..


1.3 Users and Usages of ITS
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents>[image: Description:
o to the table of
contents.]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents><http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents>1.3.1
Potential Users of ITS



…



The following paragraphs sketch these different types of users, and their
usage of ITS. In order to support all of these users, the information about
what markup should be supported to enable worldwide use and effective
localization
[NN3] <#_msocom_3> of content is provided in this specification in two ways:

* *
1.3.1.5Machine Translation Systems

…

These processes include basic tasks, like [NN4] <#_msocom_4> parsing
constraints and markup, and compositional tasks, such as disambiguation.
These tasks consume and generate valuable metadata from and for third party
users, for example, provenance information and quality scoring, and add
relevant information for follow-on tasks, processes and services, such as
MT post-editing, MT training and MT terminological enhancement.

* *
1.3.1.7Localization Workflow Managers

This type of users is concerend with localization workflows in which
content goes through certain steps: preparation for localization, start of
the localization process by e.g. a conversion into a bitext format
like[cs5]<#_msocom_5>
[XLIFF] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#xliff>, the actual
localization by human translators or machine translation [NN6] <#_msocom_6> and
other adaptations of content, and finally the integration of the localized
content into the original format. That format is often based on XML or
HTML; (Web) content management systems are widely used for content
creation, and their integration with localization workflows is an important
task for the workflow manager. For the integration of content creation and
localization, metadata plays a crucial role. E.g.[NN7] <#_msocom_7>  an ITS
data category like[NN8] <#_msocom_8>
translate<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#trans-datacat>
 can trigger the extraction of localizable text. "*Metadata roundtripping*",
that is the availibility [NN9] <#_msocom_9> of metadata both before and
after the localization process [NN10] <#_msocom_10> is crucial for many
tasks of the localization workflow manager. An example is metadata based
quality control, with checks like "*Have all pieces of content set to** **
translate="no"** **been left unchanged?*". [NN11] <#_msocom_11> Other
pieces of metadata are relevant for proper internationalization during the
localization workflow, e.g. the availibility of
Directionality<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#directionality>
 markup for adequate visualization of bidirectional text.


 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents>[image:
Description: o to the table of
contents.]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents><http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#contents>






1.6 Important Design Principles

…

Localization managers, on the other hand, need an efficient way to manage
translations of large document sets based on the same schema. These needs
could by realized [cs12] <#_msocom_12> by a specification of defaults for
the Translate <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#trans-datacat>data
category along with exceptions to those defaults (e.g. all p elements
should be translated, but not p elements inside of an index element).
  2.1.2 Global Approach

The document in Example
11<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#EX-basic-concepts-2>
 shows a different approach to identifying non-translatable content,
similar to that used with a style element in [XHTML
1.0]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#xhtml10>,
but using an ITS-defined element called rules. It works as follows: A
document can contain a rules element (placed where it does not impact the
structure of the document, e.g., in a “head” section). It contains one or
more ITS rule elements (for example [NN13] <#_msocom_13> translateRule).
Each of these specific elements contains a selector attribute. As its name
suggests, this attribute selects the node or nodes to which a corresponding
ITS information pertains. The values of ITS selector attributes are XPath
absolute location paths (or CSS selectors if
queryLanguage<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#queryLanguage>
 is set to "css"). Information for the handling of namespaces in these path
expressions is taken from namespace declarations [XML
Names]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#xmlns>
 at the current rule element.
2.1.2 Global Approach …

For specification of the
Translate<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#trans-datacat>
 data category information, the contents of the rules element would
normally be designed by an information architect familiar with the document
format and familiar with, or working with someone familiar with, the needs
of the localization group.[NN14] <#_msocom_14>


 ------------------------------

 [NN1] <#_msoanchor_1>Should ‘both’ be there?

 [NN2] <#_msoanchor_2>Should it be in bold font  since localization is in
bold font in the paragraph above.

 [NN3] <#_msoanchor_3>Should it be ‘Internationalization and localization’?

 [NN4] <#_msoanchor_4>Such as?

 [cs5] <#_msoanchor_5>Such as?

 [NN6] <#_msoanchor_6>Machine translation systems

 [NN7] <#_msoanchor_7>Can ‘e.g.’ be used here? May it be ‘For example’, or
, e.g. ?

 [NN8] <#_msoanchor_8>Such as?

 [NN9] <#_msoanchor_9>availablity

 [NN10] <#_msoanchor_10>Insert a comma.

 [NN11] <#_msoanchor_11>It may need reviewing.

 [cs12] <#_msoanchor_12>be realised

 [NN13] <#_msoanchor_13>It may use e.g., ?

 [NN14] <#_msoanchor_14>Perhaps it may be ‘ …by an information architect
familiar with, or working with someone familiar with the document format
and the needs of the localization group ‘.