- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 20:38:28 -0600
- To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: www-i18n-comments@w3.org, Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 14:26, Martin Duerst wrote: > Hello Dan, > > This is a personal answer to your comment. I'm copying Dominique, > who has supported your comment, and the I18N IG, for discussion. > > At 08:27 04/03/19 +0900, Dan Connolly wrote: > > >This is a last call comment from Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) on > >the Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0 > >(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/). > > > >Semi-structured version of the comment: > > > >Submitted by: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org) > >Submitted on behalf of (maybe empty): > >Comment type: substantive > >Chapter/section the comment applies to: 3.2 Units of aural rendering > >The comment will be visible to: public > >Comment title: conformance to "software MUST NOT assume" measurable? > >Comment: > >Regarding: > > > >C001 [S] [I] [C] Specifications, software and content MUST NOT assume > >that there is a one-to-one correspondence between characters and the > >sounds of a language. > > > >How does one test/measure/observe/demonstrate that? Would you please > >point me at a test case? > > > >I think it's fine to write: > > > > Take care not to assume a one-to-one correspondence between > > characters and sounds of a language. > > > >followed by the examples you give, > >but I don't see how making this a conformance clause is helpful. > > > >This applies to C002 and C003 as well. > > I'm not sure why C003 ([S] [I] [C] Protocols, data formats and > APIs MUST store, interchange or process text data in logical order.) > ended up in here; it's definitely extremely observable, for protocols > for example by sending some Arabic or Hebrew over the protocol and > using a hex dump to check that the characters indeed come in the > right order. Can you explain why you lumped it in together with > the others? I don't see how you can (nor why you want to) observe how things are stored nor processed inside a program. Yes, exchange is clear. > C001 and C002 ([S] [I] [C] Specifications, software and content MUST NOT > assume a one-to-one mapping between characters and units of displayed text.) > are indeed of a very similar nature, and it makes sense to discuss > them together. > > With respect to conformance, it is important to remind ourselves that > all these criteria are predicated by the definitions in Section 2, > such as (simplified): > A specification conforms to this document if it does not violate > any conformance criteria preceded by [S], > (and similar for implementations and content). > > That means that for specifications, software, or content that do not > deal with aural rendering or recognition (C001) or visual rendering > or recognition (C002), the respective criteria are simply not > applicable. > > And if you look at technology that indeed deals with aural rendering > (e.g. SSML) or visual rendering (e.g. SVG),..., you will be able to > verify (by reading the spec, and testing whether the implementations > conform to the spec,...) that indeed the don't make such assumptions. What about verifying software that doesn't correspond to such a spec? > As an example, in SSML, the <phoneme> element works on strings > (words,...), not characters (see > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-speech-synthesis-20031218/#S3.1.9). > As another example, <altglyh> in SVG allows to define alternative > renderings for groups of characters, not only for single characters. > > > So these criteria are very definitely observable. I'm still not so sure. But I don't think this is any sort of fatal flaw in the spec. I just think it's odd to make conformance clauses that come down to human judgement. In short, I'm satisfied with your response to this comment. If I were writing the document, I might do it differently. But I'm not writing it, so I'll leave it to the judgement of the folks that are. > Of course, because > of the architectural level of the spec, it's not as easy as just > creating a test case. > > > Regards, Martin. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2004 21:38:26 UTC