- From: Sue Ellen Wright <sewright@neo.rr.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:49:46 -0400
- To: "Tex Texin" <tex@xencraft.com>, <www-international@w3.org>
- Cc: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
Hi, Tex, et al., I really think that you've raised some critical issues here. I'm in the process of writing one of my recurring articles on language industry standards, and am tracking the W3C i18n evaluation of its mission at the same time that LISA/OSCAR is trying to redefine its goals for the near term. Whenever I delve into these issues I'm struck by the activity that's going on in a variety of venues, which brings up concerns about long-term interoperability of different standards efforts. There's even the problem of providing information in such a way that everybody involved knows what other players are up to. I see duplicated effort in some regards (not right here, but in some other areas), and the initiation of very similar projects in different contexts. Duelling standards sometimes evolve and inter-organizational rivalries sometimes exist (Group X members for instance may represent companies that stormed out of Group Y at some time in the past ...). Somewhere we need to have an entity that if nothing else keeps track of what's going on and monitors interoperability issues. Heaven save us from anything like a cohort of "standards police", but the diversity of projects that are out there underscores a real need for the kind of liaison you are suggesting. Lurking as usual Sue Ellen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tex Texin" <tex@xencraft.com> To: <www-international@w3.org> Cc: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:20 AM Subject: I18n recharter should address localizability > > The technologies of the W3C have become very sophisticated, enabling the > development of complex, powerful applications. Although these technologies make > some provision for language and culture through the internationalization > efforts of the organization, it is not at all obvious or easy to efficiently > localize applications using these technologies. > > There are no guidelines within the W3C for architecting applications, or for > that matter designing W3C specifications, to insure > localizability, or recommendations for processes supporting localization of > applications. > > This is a significant deficiency. There have been some external efforts, such > as XLIFF and TMX, which make use of XML in support of exchanging localization > data, but that does not address insuring that the design of an application > supports localization of that application. Application developers are > discovering when they face their first localization effort that some > rearchitecting is called for. Other technologies and platforms for development > of applications come with a recommended architecture and support for > localization, so that if the recommendations are adhered to, the application > can be efficiently localized. > > Web Services is certainly an area where localization requirements will be > significant and this is exemplified in the Web Services Internationalization > Usage Scenarios draft > (http://www.w3.org/International/ws/ws-i18n-scenarios-edit/Overview.html). > > There are some industry experts that are developing guidelines for using XML so > that contents can be localized. Yves Savourel (ENLASO) has published > information in that regard. (See his paper in the next Unicode conference > http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc26/abstracts.html#a006). Richard Ishida (W3C) has > published localization considerations for DTD design. However, the W3C should > raise awareness within its organization of the need for specifications to > support efficient localization in proposed technologies, and there should be > architectural recommendations for achieving this. > > To accomplish this, some resources need to be allocated to work on it. Either > the I18n working group or perhaps a separate Localization Working group should > be tasked with defining requirements, and recommending appropriate localization > architectures. A separate group or task force may be called for, as the skills > and tasks for localization may be different from those used for i18n. > > There should be liasions between the localization group and the other standards > organizations in the localization and linguistics space and coordination with > related standards e.g. XLIFF, TMX, etc. > > The team should have some members that are experienced with localization of > documents and applications. > > Please consider this in the rechartering of the i18n wg. > > tex > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com > Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com > > XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com > Making e-Business Work Around the World > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 10:50:18 UTC