See also: IRC log
YS: Damian, please tell us about you.
DA: Hi everybody
... I will replace Tim Foster
... I worked at Sun for 5-6 year in l10n area
... I
am the lead of Sun l10n ??? desktop
... currently I'm working on openoffice
<scribe> ACTION: FS to look at the other requirements which are mentioned in the scope wiki. If scope is accepted, put them into ODD (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: FS 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. (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action02]
<scribe> ACTION: Put extensibility in the WD in the way discussed in last teleconference. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action03]
<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/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action04]
<scribe> ACTION: SR to put a comment on Nested element req <http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509ReqNestedElements>. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action05]
SR: did the action item on writing odd2xmlspec
<scribe> ACTION: YS to ask RI for techniques template. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action06]
http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping
YS: I thougth it was well done
... we get a better idea of how it will work
... I had some comments,
but you answered that in a mail
... CL had some comments as well
CL: I saw one of my comments generated some questions
... this summary indicates the progress we are
making
... in a comment, I had a reference to xsl-fo
... I meant that computation of scoping is s.t. different
... xsl has s.t.
explicit how a value should be computed
a maybe useful xml schema data type:
<xs:simpleType name="scopeInline">
<xs:restriction base="xs:string">
<xs:pattern value="
(child::.+)|
(descendant::.+)|
(descendant-or-self::.+)|
(\.//.+)|
(attribute::/.+)|
(@.+)|
(name\(\)=.+)"/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
<GoutamSaha> Hi everybody
SR: this might be an unhealthy route to go
SR: some users might have other use cases
AZ: there is an error in the attribute ??? in the WD, I will fix that
SR: if you want to check the XPath
... you could also use schematron, and go down the NDVL route
...
maybe your example is a better example in the non-normative part of the spec
FS: that is a good idea
... "Summary of the scope requirement" is what we are talking about
YS: our solution would be translate "yes" or "no"
... all the examples we used so far are a single set of
values
... but we have not touched the case of constraints
FS: we could express that with the XLink way, using attributes
YS: as for ruby, we don't define ruby ourselves
... why not defining an enclosing ruby tag?
FS: this is because of text in attributes
... but if this solution does not work, people who read the wd
will tell us
<scribe> ACTION: FS to produce an odd for the scoping element, with the complete structure of the wd [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action07]
SR: one point is whether you want to mandate XPath 2.0?
FS: sorry, XPath 1.0 is feasible as well
YS: FS had the concern to discuss solution in the req document
FS: this is my mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2005OctDec/0037.html
... I can do the changes in the req document fast
YS: I can try to help you with that fast, but I will be gone most of next week and the end of this week
...
let's talk about that offline
YS: we agreed that extensibility should not be tackeled right now, and that we would put that into the wd
<scribe> ACTION: FS to put as many as possible requirements into the tag set working draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/10/19-i18n-minutes.html#action08]
YS: other comments on this topic?
YS: we had some feedback, but we did not follow up with that very well
... about i18n, l10n, and so on.
... we had some comments from Mark Davis and Adisson Phillips
... is there s.t. we could use in our documents?
<YvesS> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions
FS: currently discussed between the WGs, but no solution so far
YS: do we have to refer to the req document from the spec document?
FS: might be useful, but is not mandatory
YS: the f2f meeting, is the 6-7-8 of December
<YvesS> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0504ReqKeyDefinitions
YS: will be somewhere near Oxford
logistics page: http://www.w3.org/International/its/ftf-200512-Didcot.html
YS: we have to check hotels
... The Upper Reaches, Abingdon
... that is our first choice, cf.
http://www.superbreak.com/home.cfm?GroupID=4003&content=hotel
... lunch is not provided
... we need the list of people who will
come
... I'll try to start an agenda soon
... any other business?
regrets for next week: YS
FS will chair
Damian: I will tell you next week if I can participate in the f2f