See also: IRC log
<scribe> ACTION: CL to use ODD to specify the indicator of translatability implementation. (Waiting for progress on the ODD conversion) (pending) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: FS to ask W3C if there is a methodology for mapping existing / under development (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<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) (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action03]
<YvesS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0026.html
<scribe> ACTION: FS to make proposals by mail for a shortcut for the namespace of the ITS specification Working Draft (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: SR to introduce to the working group the l10n / i18n aspects of the TEI (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action05]
<YvesS> http://www.tei-c.org/I18N/i18n-talk.pdf
SR: I got useful comments from CL to put in tonight
... I need a prose version for that
... it will be
presented at the annual members meeting of TEI in Bulgaria and for a workshop on TEI in Germany
<scribe> ACTION: SR to put a comment on http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements in the wiki (pending) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action06]
SR: still pending, work on odd desiderata from FS have more priority
<YvesS> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0038.html
<scribe> ACTION: YS to list possible constraints and values for them (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action07]
Yves: CL proposed to integrate white space constraints
... the container size constrained seems to be
related to display
... but buffer length seems to be the valid constraint at our level
SR: Why wouldn't you mandate char?
Yves: Would like to do that, but
... if you have some restrictions from your programming language, that
might not work
<chriLi> What about sht. like a namespace-related "URI constraint"? We may have to say 'http://ww.y.com/de' may never be changed to 'http://ww.y.com/de'
SR: combination of length and encoding might be difficult
YS: very valid point
... how about white space, CL?
CL: no, nothing more
<chriLi> Correction: What about sht. like a namespace-related "URI constraint"? We may have to say 'xmlns="http://ww.y.com/de"' may never be changed to 'xmlns="http://ww.y.com/en"'
CL: this is on a meta level
... maybe its related to indicator of translatability
... on the
constraints again, I tried to check XLIFF again
... I did not find anything more - which is good
<scribe> ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template (pending) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action08]
<scribe> ACTION: CL to post more notes on Scoping (done) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action09]
<YvesS> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping
YS: currently two main ideas
... one is to use translateYes and translateNo with XPath expressions
...
or translate with various values and a separate scope attribute
... two main opinions: use translateYes / translateNo, or the @translate
attribute
... we should decide soon, to be able to go to wd
CL: this touches on all data categories we discuss
... e.g. also for ruby, term markup
... indicator of
translatability is a particular problematic case
... because we have a different understanding what needs to be captured:
... we have to
say "you have to do s.t. about this, and nothing about this"
... doing scoping by means of XPath, I found another argument to use translateYes
and translateNo
YS: how could we reach consensus?
CL: a first part would be to say: the general approach is to have an attribute like @dir and a scope attribute
like @dirScope
... the same works with @ruby and @rubyScope and other requirements
... the second question is what to do with
translatability
YS: explains the scope discussion to AZ
example from Yves:
<parent-of-e translate="yes" translateScope="e@a">
<e translate="no" translateScope="." a="Review">456</e>
</parent-of-e>
translateScope="e/@a"
YS: if you take the full document, it is possible to say different things about 2 attributes at the same
element
... that would allow us to have different values
CL: this looks elegant
translateScope="../e/@a">
scribe: I'm just wondering about the root element
CL: should we take an action item about a root element case?
YS: using XPath seems to be original
<chriLi> We would need to look at two special case: root element with children, root element without children
<scribe> ACTION: felix to summarize the discussion of the scope wiki, look at root elements with / without children, and if there are no more comments, to put it into odd [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action10]
YS: the content of "." could be identical to translate="yes"
CL: we added many things, not only translatability:
<!ENTITY % scope
"CDATA">
<!ENTITY % itstagset
"
<!-- one of A or B -->
<!-- start of A -->
translate (yes | no) #IMPLIED
translateNoScope %scope; #IMPLIED
<!-- end of A -->
<!-- start of B -->
translateYes %scope; #IMPLIED
translateNo %scope; #IMPLIED
<!-- end of B -->
locinfo (yes) #IMPLIED
locinfoScope %scope; #IMPLIED
isTerm (yes) #IMPLIED
isTermScope %scope; #IMPLIED
ruby (yes) #IMPLIED
rubyScope %scope; #IMPLIED
dir CDATA #IMPLIED
dirScope %scope; #IMPLIED
lingInfo CDATA #IMPLIED
lingInfoScope %scope; #IMPLIED
equiv CDATA #IMPLIED
"
>
CL: should we put that into the first wd
FS: I think it is a good idea
YS: I think so too
<YvesS> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecExtensibility
<scribe> ACTION: felix to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into odd / xmlspec [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action11]
CL: distinction between providing more values, or another namespace
YS: that are two different things, yes
... the namespace approach has the advantage that it is easier to
distinct between ITS and extensions
SR: People can put in their own private namespaces, and we have no problem with that
CL: let's look at the attribute "indicator of translatability"
... I wonder how ITS may be able to evolve if
people need more than "yes" and "no"
FS:Sperberg-McQueen proposes to give examples for extensibility, in different schema languages
YS: is there a value of extensions like translate-extension?
SR: it depends
... a general container like ITS other would be suitable maybe - is that your idea, CL?
CL: I thought: do we see a need for extensibility?
... if yes, we should decide which mechanism we use
SR: I like the attitude of Sperberg-McQueen (mentioned by FS) of giving examples
AZ: the confusion comes from the real need for extensions for XLIFF
... with ITS, this is a different
area
CL: for many data categories, we already know that we don't need extension, e.g. bidi
... so what should we
do? Just follow Sperberg-McQueen by giving examples?
AZ: Yes
FS: gives some examples for extension mechanisms in w3c wgs
CL: we should give that into the wd? we don't have extensibility, but you could use e.g. namespaces
<scribe> ACTION: put extensibility in the wd in the way discussed in this teleconf [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/12-i18n-minutes.html#action12]
YS: how will be at the meeting
FS: will leave on last day of f2f around noon or before?
YS: NP
CR: abingdon is the town
... close to Oxford
<r12a> near Didcot
we will have enough cars, I guess
YS: put more information as soon as possible
CL: AZ, you gave a talk in France? Is there a presentation to share?
AZ: Yes, it is in French
... will send a copy to the group
... I gave a similar presentation at xml
2004 in Washington
next week, same channel
<GoutamSaha> Bye everybody
<GoutamSaha> Bye