Re: [all] readiness and translation process parameters

Hi Felix,

See below:

> Sorry for nitpicking here, but you because of the above, you cannot enumerate BCP47.   

OK. That is true, although if you use the typical locale identifiers used in industry you can enumerate those, but it is important to remember that they are the simplest subset of BCP47, not all of it.

> I agree with this - and that's we reason I think this data category will have no interoperable implementations. Dave, I can already tell you, with this approach I would disagree with a "call for consensus". I understand the wish to have this feature e.g. from Pedro, but my proposal would be different:
> - Pedro's team  teams up VistaTEC or other LSPs
> - Not our TC, but the LSPs tell us what their lowest bar for interoperability is here. 

Agreed. We cannot define this without getting it wrong. User communities need to define this.

> I'm not sure we can specify interoperability tests at this point.
> Indeed - for me another reason to object against this moving forward.

I'm fine with that.

> That's another reason to not to try to "push this feature into ITS 2.0".

Agreed. I think it's still worth asking the question, but I won't put a super high priority on collecting any answers except those we get readily.

> If Linport is already working on this, why doing it in ITS 2.0? The same holds for specialRequirements IMO.

The main reason was that Linport only defines it for the document/project level, but has no mechanism for tagging content on the web or going to the sub-document level. That said, I think it might make sense to see what happens as Linport matures before we touch it. It is almost certain that if we do something in this area now we would have to revise it very soon to keep it and Linport in synch. So based on that, I think it makes sense to set those areas that overlap with Linport/TS 11669 aside for now.



Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 13:06:36 UTC