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: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:29:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAL58czpGw8krM9ai54d=0J-4TPS1rY6VoJtdQLJpJDYR023b7w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Thanks a lot, Dave. I think with this we can close ISSUE-21 - do you agree?

Felix

2012/5/18 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>

>  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>
>
>> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 08:30:16 UTC

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