Re: [Comment on WS-I18N WD]

Please find attached a proposed draft update of Section 3.4, Providing 
Locale Preferences, based on the discussions in the past few weeks.

Regards,
-Dan

Dan Chiba wrote:
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> Dan Chiba さんは書きました:
>>>
>>> Phillips, Addison wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not sure about "RFC 822 zone offset", that is
>>>>>> for my European eyes rather US-centric, and not what
>>>>>> I'd expect in a memo claiming to be about I18N.  The
>>>>>> draft says:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> | Note that RFC 822 zone offsets are not complete
>>>>>> | time zone identifiers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       
>>>>> Yes I think this is an important note. Zone offsets are not very
>>>>> useful
>>>>> because it does not identify a time zone. I think this note implies
>>>>> using Olson ID is preferred. (for this reason I intentionally put
>>>>> it
>>>>> first, switching from the order in the draft).
>>>>>     
>>>>
>>>> I think you draw too broad a conclusion here. I agree that zone 
>>>> offsets do not fully identify time zones [1]. However, you can't 
>>>> really say that "zone offsets are not very useful", because there 
>>>> are plenty of cases in which they are exceedingly useful, such as 
>>>> the many cases in which one only has an offset and not a full time 
>>>> zone. To deny a system that has only the offset the ability to 
>>>> specify it seems foolish, which is why I included that particular 
>>>> representation originally.
>>>>   
>>> I do think zone offsets are useful in some cases and should be 
>>> valid. I did not mean to deny a system that can only identify the 
>>> offset. I meant generally full time zone is preferred to offset 
>>> alone. (However in reality full time zone identification is often 
>>> not achieved or supported - web client, calendar, XML schema and ISO 
>>> 8601, to name a few.)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Dan
>>>> I agree with Frank that the references we used originally are stale.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>> Allowing "Z" would be
>>>>> also good,
>>
>> not directly a contribution to this thread, but a related question: 
>> what kind of specificity do you expect from the schema at
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-i18n/ws-i18n.xsd
>> currently we have
>> <xs:element name="locale" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
>> <xs:element name="tz" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
>> and for i18n:preferences an element / attribute extensibility point. 
>> Is that enough and should we leave editors to themselves and / or to 
>> other specs, e.g. if they want to construct adequate date format 
>> specifications like the one's Dan mentioned?
>>
>> Felix
> My opinion is that the schema should be slightly more specific; #3 
> language and #4 collation are not based on LDML so there should be 
> corresponding element definitions.
> <xs:element name="language" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
> <xs:element name="collation" type="xs:NMTOKEN"/>
> All others are LDML based, so I think think they should be left to LDML.
>
> Regards,
> -Dan
>
>
>
>
>