Re: Additional feedback on the roadmap doc

Hi Renjish,

>    Sorry for mixing both comments and corrections in the same doc...Went 
> with the flow... Will separately list them along with my final review 
> before the next call.....
thaks this is great !

> Meanwhile, here is a positive news regarding localization from India.....
>  
> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/24/stories/2009092452120100.htm
>  
> Considering the fact that 2 of the local languages (Hindi & Bengali) 
> feature in the top ten spoken languages, globally (while completely 
> missing out in a similar list for languages on Internet) I think this is 
> a major step.

what you are underlining is a clear issue (lack of information about 
languages on the internet). Few info are available here and there like 
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

> It's also worth mentioning that a government agency 
> (http://www.ildc.in/) came up with fonts for the Indian languages, 
> thereby emphasizing on the role that governments can play in developing 
> technologies (and not being mere policy makers) to support social 
> development using ICT. 

this is a good example indeed. i should mention that in the document.

> By the way, how do we define a lesser-known language? Can we get a 
> reference to this? Is the emphasis on lesser-known or less-spoken? I 
> think these are not the same because lesser-known begs the 
> question, less known to whom? The developer, the end-user or people from 
> a particular geography? It's relative....

I believe that the emphasis should not be on lesser-known or less-spoken 
languages, but on the fact that the number of languages supported in ICT 
is very small compared to the number of languages in the world
then lesser-known, in that context , is a language that does not attract 
attention for support or study by people working on internationalization 
or localization.

I tried to describe this concept in the intro of section 6.1.3 in the 
docuument; Let me know if you believe we should update it.

Best
Stephane

> Regards
> Renjish
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org 
> <mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Renjish,
> 
>     thanks for the extensive review.
>     I would like to propose that you don't mix in the document the proof
>     reading and the comments, as it is very hard to extract the comments.
> 
>     The proof-reading work is great and having it in the document is
>     helpful.
>     The comments are more easily discussed outside the document. So
>     please in the future, extract them.
> 
>     For now, i tried to summarize them below (merging those from this
>     version, from the one coming from the previous version:
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mw4d/2009Aug/0063.html ):
> 
>     1- Change in structure:
>     you are proposing to move up the executive summary as the first
>     section, and the scope as the 5th section
> 
>     2- adding a definition section (probably as the second section of
>     the doc after the intro ?)
> 
>     3-restructuring the audience as put in the latest document you sent
> 
>     did i miss any major comments ?
> 
>     Thanks
>     Stephane
>     Renjish Kumar a écrit :
> 
>         Hello,
>           Pls. refer the attached doc for additional comments and
>         corrections on the Aug 28 version of the roadmap doc... I am at
>         the 6th section now... So, will be back soon with the final
>         comments soon....  Regards
>         Renjish
>           
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org <mailto:stephane@w3.org>
>     W3C                             +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
>     BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
>     F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,        
>     France
> 
> 

-- 
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
France

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 06:34:48 UTC