I18N ITS WG -- 28 Sep 2005

Action Items

<scribe> ACTION: RI to contact person from W3C about feedback from non-wg members (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: FS to contact person for ATOM (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action02]

<YvesS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005JulSep/0135.html

<scribe> ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: Editors to add the constraints requirements to the scope sensitive requirements (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: FS to check inheritance for xml:lang (as part of his work on a wiki on xml:lang for the i18n core WG) (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Editors to take http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005JulSep/0135.html into account as they start editing the its spec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: FS to use ODD to specify Ruby implementation (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action07]

<scribe> ACTION: SR to help FS and CL to set up ODD processing environment (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action08]

<scribe> ACTION: YS to list possible constraints and values for them (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action09]

<scribe> ACTION: FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under development (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action10]

<scribe> ACTION: FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action11]

<scribe> ACTION: YS to post message about meeting f2f Dec-14 to 16 (noon) (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action12]

<scribe> ACTION: RI to check on the possibility for hosting at the w3c office in Oxford (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action13]

<scribe> ACTION: GS to continue work on the document he started to see if we should put that into the guidelines (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action14]

<scribe> ACTION: SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects of the TEI (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action15]

<scribe> ACTION: SR to put a comment on http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action16]

<scribe> ACTION: FS To contact Deborah A. Lapeyre (DITA committee) about the relation between its / DITA (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action17]

F2f meeting

6-8 of december as f2f days?

Yves: starting on the 6, for three days

<scribe> ACTION: yves to Post the modification of the f2f date: 6-8 december [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action18]

Do we need 'translate-options'?

Yves: We decided on the translate attribute if we would have only a yes no value
... or also translate-options with further information
... I wanted to discuss that now and gather opinions
... advantage of one attribute assures portability

CL: we saw a relationship between this data category and scoping
... without a general solution for scoping we might not have dealt with it completely
... I type in a proposal:

<chriLi> translateInclude=".|x"

<chriLi> transExclude=".|x"

<chriLi> translation-detail="[a, b]"

Cl: We need a container to specify like what I just typed
... the first part refers to what should be translated
... the second part contains the information we give

<chriLi> trainslation-detail="[definition, "please use standard terminology"]"

Yves: parts of the proposal sound counter intuitive than "normal" xml
... having a specific scope for translation seems to be redundant

<YvesS> FS: ..general solution would be easier to adapt

<YvesS> .. loc notes would be already covered

FS: also translation details might be defined as a general "detail" description

CL: let's have an example

<chriLi> translateInclude="title, @publisher"

<its:info scope="title"

<its:info scope="@publishe

containingn its:detail

<chriLi> <bookInfo translateInclude="., @title"

<its:info scope="/book/div[1]/bookinfo/@publishe

YS: we have to make a difference between meta information in general (e.g. in a separate file) and information on a specific element e.g. for overriding

<chriLi> translateInclude="\\bookInfo union @title

URI for union http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-functions/#func-union

RI: We could also have comma seperated values

<SebastianR> union is xpath2-specific, isn't it? its just sugar

FS: Sebastian, yes, it is sugar :)

YS: we have to be careful not to have too many "specific" extensions
... and be close to xml

FS: I would like to adopt CL ideas on a general level, not bound only to the translation topic

CL: YS asked: should we have the translation extension in the ITS NS?
... and the other question was: should we have more values than "yes" and "no"
... it would be good to have at least a subset of XPath for the translation issue

YS: we should have a wiki page for this
... we need to discuss the scoping mechanism
... and the problem of attribute - do we address them?

<scribe> ACTION: YS to set up a wiki page on the scoping mechanism and the extension mechanism [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action19]

Localization properties

FS: should we have only a container for loc properties or also more?

YS: The hard part is how to draw the border between these 2

RI: we said that ITS work may be hard if we don't know the loc properties requirements are
... but we said we will not define the loc prop mechanism
... there is a lot of overlap between our requirements and loc properties
... we thought we would work together with the people who define loc pros

YS: but they don't define it, so we have nobody to talk to

FS: Maybe we have to draw the border between the 2 on a case to case basis - for now

YS: yes

RI: we said at the f2f that there is a difference between having an attribute at an element saying translate="yes"
... vs. saying "all p elements of class x are translatable"
... which is more close to loc properties

<scribe> ACTION: start writing the common sensus of the translation req and add info on further possibilities [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/09/28-i18n-minutes.html#action20]

Other business

CL: still have problems with xslt for xmlspec

RI: it would be enough to validate the xml
... and use saxon

CL: Will do

Next telefone conference

Christian?

I18N ITS WG

28 Sep 2005

Attendees