See also: IRC log
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
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
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
[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
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.