i18n ITS WG

scope attributes

SR: we use same schema fragments in all contexts (for scope)
... another problem: all attributes are i nsitu in the ITS namespace
... as it stands, the attributes are non qualified

FS: so we should have everything qualified, all attributes?

SR: that is a little bit ugly
... but otherwise we would have to maintain two schema fragments
... for such problems, we need test documents / test suites
... two other things:

as for "locinfo":

scribe: it contains completely free text
... which is against our recommendation

YS: do you mean we would have translatable text in the locinfo?

SR: yes, might be.
... or we might want to write s.t. like "this <p> element has to be handled carefully"
... another problem:
... we have data categories and scopes
... why don't we just have one scope?

YS: I see

SR: in an instance document you are able to specify two different things with e.g. translateScope and locinfoScope
... but we need a guide which says what happens if there is a conflict

YS: you have a default for each scope
... if the defaults are different, than there might be s.t. missing

SR: for such cases, again we need more examples
... I don't know what to do for the locinfo case
... a possibility might be to allow a <locinfo> child
... the same might be true for <linginfo>
... you might want to say for both to say "you have a child or an attribute"

YS: most of your concerns seem to be about the dislocated case and the in situ case (the latter with attributes)

SR: that is only one part of my concern
... it bothers me more if all attributes are in the same namespace

YS: you are right, we need some samples

SR: another point: the "quo vadis" example
... another example: "motherboard" which should not refer to a femal parent

YS: that is a good example for a term

FS: so I will use "motherboard" instead of "quo vadis"

SR: what about the boolean data type? that might be an issue

section on linginfo

YS: if we have nothing to say, let's take it out again

FS: so I will take the "linginfo" section out of the document

about section 5

http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#d2e1500

SR: what to do about this?

YS: we should check if these document types already have ITS like information

SR: open document format is interesting

http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#ruby-implementation

SR: so there are two topics in section 5:
... 1) this is what a user of ITS + a format should do with this format
... 2)this is what is already in this format

FS: a mapping between such formats and ITS is a another point

SR: like the equiv element in the TEI

YS: should we find one person who is responsible?

FS: that is a good idea

SR: we could ask Damian to handle open document and docbook

FS: I could handle DITA

other editor notes

[Ed. note: Are you all happy with the title of the document / the abstract?]

SR: should it be "ILTS"?

YS: maybe we don't need its at the end

SR: "Copyright c TODO W3CR" is strange

FS: that is an stylesheet error, I will look at that

YS: sec. 1.2:

[Ed. note: I am biased: of course one could describe here why we are doing this, but this still seems to me repeating what is in the requirements document.]

YS: maybe a generic paragraph from the req document in sec. 1.2

FS: I will take a look

<scribe> ACTION: YS to find examples for sec. 1.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/09-i18n-minutes.html#action01]

YS: I see a lot of bad XML files every day
... remove [Ed. note: This is for my action item on extensibiligy]

FS: O.K.

YS: formatting question for the examples
... there is no separation if there are two examples in a row

FS: I will take a look at the stylesheets

YS: as for the DTD case, we can use the documentRule stuff
... so I do have a way to use ITS
... we need to mention what you should do in the DTD case

FS: I will integrate a note in the document about that

YS: next node: [Ed. note: I Added this to explain the difference between schemaRule and documentRule. Any comments?]
... I had no comments
... next comment [Ed. note: I have the feeling that the following is mainly a repetition of what is in the scope section anyway. But if we leave it out, there is not much left here ...]

FS: that comment is not valid anymore, I will take it out

YS: [Ed. note: I don't know what to put into here - any ideas?]
... we agree to remove it
... next comment: .[Ed. note: This is the same as an example in section 3.2.3, but I thought it is helpful. I added examples for every data category, what do you think?]
... I liked the example FS sent before the meeting
... the issue is just that you cannot have two ruby attributes which have ruby text, but maybe that is not a big issue

summary

YS: if we address the changes from today, this is ready for a wd

FS: we should have test files for the f2f

YS: yes, and each of us should take a format they know and work with

<scribe> ACTION: everybody to create examples of ITS applications in schemas / documents he is familar with [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/09-i18n-minutes.html#action02]

SR: publishing is o.k., it is only borderline cases which we can tackle later

<scribe> ACTION: next meeting we will vote about publication, please read the WD [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/09-i18n-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: felix to integrate what we discussed today into the odd document until Thursday evening (Japanese time) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/09-i18n-minutes.html#action04]

FS: I will do no editing between Thursday night and Friday night (Japanese time)

SR: I will use that time to tackle the examples etc. in the odd file

<scribe> ACTION: YS to create an agenda for the f2f [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/09-i18n-minutes.html#action05]

YS: if you have ideas for the f2f, please tell me

Sebastian?

I forgot an important point: could you write a paragraph about ODD? We should mention ODD in the document in any case.