W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2012

Re: mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-21 (cms-related-terminology): CMS related terminology: not only CMS as content [MLW-LT Requirements Document]

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 23:17:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4FB578ED.9090309@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Felix,
I take the point of making sure the text doesn't give the impression 
that CMS is the only product class for creating and authoring content, 
I'll fix that.

However, we should do this by being more precise in our definitions of 
the products classes and what we mean by 'content'. I'll address that 
now in the definitions, so we can refer to the creation etc of 'content' 
without loosing the association with specific product classes.

cheers,
Dave

On 17/05/2012 14:37, Felix Sasaki wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> 2012/5/17 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>
>     Hi Felix,
>     Talking in terms of files or content item specifically makes sense
>     in the technical specification. However in the requirements
>     document, referencing the actual product classes, such as CMS,
>     rather than just talking more abstractly about files, would
>     resonate more clearly with readers of a use case or requirement
>     who is trying to understand the benefit it might have for them.
>
>
> I agree that it makes sense to reference the actual product class. 
> However, in my view this class is much larger than CMS, even if CMS is 
> in the centre for many in the group. That is the main purpose of this 
> issue. In many use case descriptions or data category descriptions, we 
> refer only to CMS where it would make sense to refer to content in 
> general.
>
>
>     So I'd be against such a blanket change since if we only talk in
>     terms file formats it will be more difficult to many readers to
>     map that into actual problems.
>
>
> So what do you propose to include XML, "plain" HTML or other types of 
> content as well? Take for example this statement that defines "content 
> author":
>
> "Author of web content. Typically uses an online editor that is 
> integrated into a CMS."
>
> I think this is too narrow, in two senses: people do not only author 
> web content, but also e.g. XML which is then transformed into Web 
> content. And people do authoring without CMS.
>
> Felix
>
>
>     cheers,
>     Dave
>
>
>
>     On 16/05/2012 20:09, MultilingualWeb-LT Working Group Issue
>     Tracker wrote:
>
>         mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-21 (cms-related-terminology): CMS related
>         terminology: not only CMS as content [MLW-LT Requirements
>         Document]
>
>         http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/track/issues/21
>
>         Raised by: Felix Sasaki
>         On product: MLW-LT Requirements Document
>
>         In many areas, the requirements document puts CMS in the
>         centre, e.g. in the use case "CMS-Side Revision Management". I
>         propose that rather we talk about content, that may be
>         available in a CMS, an XML file or from other pieces of
>         content. If we agree on this, an action item is needed to go
>         through the whole document and change the terminology.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Felix Sasaki
> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2012 22:17:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:31:44 UTC