- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:29:43 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czpGw8krM9ai54d=0J-4TPS1rY6VoJtdQLJpJDYR023b7w@mail.gmail.com>
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