R: Translations and localization problem

No. We are not searching for "authorized translators."

I know it, Judy; I was simply trying to guess the worst things that someone
could read in our document. 
You know, I'm getting used in meeting (and fighting with) people who try to
say: "W3C? Not very important... They are american after all, and they
believe their language and culture is the only one" and it's not always easy
to make them understand they're wrong. And if such a comment comes from
people involved in italian government and in the accessibility italian law,
I must not simply say "you're wrong, i'm right"; the question I was asking
myself and the group was "is it possible to make people understand that W3C
is not only exponing a problem, but solving it?".
Of course it is, and we all must find it, and be sure that document can
transmit a positive and constructive message.

If we're listing real fragmentation drivers in the standards harmonization
document, we obviously need to include this issue, since as you clearly
agree, this is in fact a fragmentation driver.
If we are in the midst of developing a process to address the problem, we
also can indeed also mention this fact in our document. It's apparently not
yet expressed clearly enough -- however, the point of a draft is to try to
arrive at clear ways to express things. Comments are welcome, but are
particularly helpful when they don't assume the worst.

That would be great, Judy: we should mention this situation in the document,
saying that the problem does exists, but W3C is doing its best to fix it.
This is the moment the document can be improved, and I believe that any
"worst" but constructive comment may be welcome if its purpose is to come
across some fundamental concept that may be expressed in a better way. 

My best regards,

Roberto Castaldo
www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
IWA/HWG Member
Cell 348 3700161
Icq 178709294

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 14:21:13 UTC