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

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

From: Moritz Hellwig <Moritz.Hellwig@cocomore.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:43:23 +0200
Message-ID: <A5F4BCC8EDECF74D97DBCEF820F7269FC0466F@cocont10.office.cocomore.com>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "Dave Lewis" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Hello Felix, hello Dave,

 

I agree. 

 

Then we should probably also discuss section 6.6 Removal, Archiving and
Reintegration of ITS mark-up. If we focus on content and content formats
alone, this section makes less sense.

 

Cheers,

Moritz

 

Von: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Mai 2012 10:30
An: Dave Lewis
Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Betreff: Re: mlw-lt-track-ISSUE-21 (cms-related-terminology): CMS related
terminology: not only CMS as content [MLW-LT Requirements Document]

 

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 Thursday, 24 May 2012 14:44:08 UTC

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