Re: ISSUE-118: HTML ITS default behaviour - starting point, ACTION-452

(Taking again the HTML implementers into the loop),

Ankit, Philipp, Thomas, asking again: what are your thoughts on this thread?

Background and summary:

Defaults draft 
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/wiki/HTML5_Defaults

Issues (please correct if I'm wrong):
- Mismatch between HTML5 spec and our draft, e.g. "script" in HTML5 is 
translatable (potentially due to JavaScript inside script that might 
contain translatable items)
- Question whether "our" defaults should be normative or a BP. Karl and 
Pablo are for a normative definition.
- Jirka brought up the idea of an "HTML binding" for "Translate", taking 
the HTML behaviour into account. That "binding" could be described by an 
ITS rules file.
- As Jirka pointed out: HTML5.1 is a moving target, and its hard to 
track changes.
- Phil said we mave have to go a "align as much as possible route" and 
have ITS as a mechanism to override / modify the HTML behaviour.
- Karl asked about "what't the plan here?" wrt to the different 
behaviour in HTML - let me try to reply below.

At
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Mar/0157.html
Karl asked
"we should firstly decide if we want these HTML Default as  rules for a 
best practice or as a normative section."
this really needs input from implemters, so I encourage everybody to 
have a look here. Having the rules normatively would also have an 
influence on implementations and showcases, e.g. including Cocomore, 
DCU, Lucy, the test suite (= influence TCD) etc.

Now, about "what't the plan here?" (question from Karl): from my 
experience with HTML folks a direct discussion e.g. in bugzilla works 
best. Get yourself a bugzilla account
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/createaccount.cgi
and discuss directly in the bug
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21084
e.g. you could reply to
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21084#c4
"Looks like http://html5.org/r/7745 is the relevant change."

For HTML5(.1), we can't really say "let's do this in a formal manner: 
get MLW-LT working group consensus, go to HTML WG with a formal mail 
etc.". As you can see from "looks like" in
"Looks like http://html5.org/r/7745 is the relevant change."
This is much less formal. I won't judge this, it's just the way it is.

 From this thread I have the impression that people have concerns about 
translatability of "script" and "style". Can you raise them directly in 
Bugzilla? FYI, Bugzilla allows you to put a mailing list into CC, e.g. 
public-multilingualweb-lt.

Best,

Felix

Am 21.03.13 09:53, schrieb Karl Fritsche:
> Hi Jirka, all,
>
>
> On 20.03.2013 17:15, Jirka Kosek wrote:
>> On 20.3.2013 16:13, Karl Fritsche wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't find the discussion on the HTML5 list about the changes,
>>> because I wanted to lookup, why the added the style attribute as
>>> translatable. The other attributes would be fine with me and are mor or
>>> less the same, we had in our list too.
>> It's sometimes hard to track source of changes as not everything happens
>> on mailing list or bugzilla. In this case I think that reason could be
>> CSS content property which can contain natural language text.
>
> Okay, thanks for this info.So what is our plan here now? Let style be 
> translatable or try to ask them, why its translatable?
>
>>> While for these defaults could be generated rules, there is still the
>>> different behavior of the translate attribute. All translatable
>>> attributes are translate="yes" by default in HTML, while in ITS its
>>> "no". Also the only possibility in HTML5 to change translatable
>>> attributes to "no", would be to at the element or parent element the
>>> attribute translate="no". In ITS we say that the translate attribute
>>> only influence elements, not attributes.
>> We say this about general translate data category. But we can change
>> rules for HTML binding of translate category.
>
> Basically we are pointing to a solution, which behaves differently 
> when you use ITS in HTML and in XML? So for the translate data 
> category you can only partially reuse your code from XML. Fine with me ;)
>
>>
>>> Even with all these "problems", we should first decide how we want 
>>> to go
>>> forward with the HTML5 Defaults. If we want to use this only to 
>>> generate
>>> a global ruleset for a best practice document, then we could ignore all
>>> these problems and say that you can parse a document in the ITS way or
>>> in the HTML way. For this case I'm in favor to use another attribute
>>> like its-translate to make this clear for everybody.
>> We shouldn't introduce its-translate if there is translate already in
>> HTML. If we think that HTML translate attribute is broken, we should ask
>> for fixing. But having two almost same attributes doesn't makes any 
>> sense.
>
> I know, I only wanted to exaggerate a little bit, that we don't get to 
> far away from HTML.
> I still think, we should firstly decide if we want these HTML Default 
> as rules for a best practice or as a normative section. Here the 
> problem could be that HTML5.1 is a moving target. But for overall 
> handling its much better to have this a default instead of only a best 
> practice rule set.
>
> Cheers
> Karl
>
>

Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 10:08:46 UTC