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

RE: [All] Call for consensus (Re: finished edits to requirements document)

From: Jan Nelson <Jan.Nelson@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 17:49:39 +0000
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8E3F7404816BBC46A339E2D718928ECB28DDCA@TK5EX14MBXW603.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I am still OK with this as a first public draft version, including changes

________________________________
From: Felix Sasaki [fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:23 AM
To: Dave Lewis
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: [All] Call for consensus (Re: finished edits to requirements document)

Thanks a lot, Dave.

All, this is another call for consensus to publish the draft.

The *frozen* version is at

http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/requirements/mlw-lt_requirements-draft.html

Changes to the wiki will not automatically be reflected in that version. If there is no comment in this thread until 22 May *Tuesday morning* (European time) I will request publication as a first public working draft.

Thanks,

Felix

2012/5/18 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
Hi Felix,
Did the following:
1) added some general terminology as discussed previously, especially for non-localisation people
2) clarified the relation between content and the cms as a specific product class, and also in relation to other product classes. Added web browser as product class
3) changed, where appropriate, reference to CMS to either 'content', 'client' or 'client's systems'
4) updated wording on use cases where the benefit was not really clear. Looking at them, there are some that overlap and there are surely some usecases not in there to support all the data categories. In the next version we should refactor the use cases so that they are integrated with the data categories, of the benefits of implementing them are easier to ascertain. I hihglighted the importance of XLIFF roundtripping in a use case also
5) checked all mentions of ITS specify either ITS1.0 or 2.0.
6) made some changes to the comment related to readiness data category after list post and discussion with pedro

I think this is good enough now to go to publishing for this draft.

Thanks from the co-chairs to everyone to date for their inputs.






--
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 17:50:30 UTC

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