i18n ITS working group

Yves: happy new year to everybody!

Review of action items

felix: most of my action items are pending :(

<scribe> ACTION: Felix will tackle moving information from the i18n-comments lists, and move it to bugzilla. (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action01]

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to change bidi notation, as a response to Mimasas comment. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action02]

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to correct the syntax error in the markup logged in Bugzilla. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action03]

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to correct the wrong XML Schema namespace. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action04]

<scribe> ACTION: Sebastian to change the processing system for ODD (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action05]

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to check possible problems with both elements and attributes qualified. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action06]

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to change the ITS ODD definition so that it does not need an entry point anymore. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action07]

<scribe> ACTION: Christian to write a non-normative section on scope, at the beginning of the scope section (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action08]

felix: Please don't wait for me with this

<scribe> ACTION: Felix to talk to the QA activity within W3C about conformance criteria for ITS (ONGOING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action09]

<scribe> ACTION: Info about next face-to-face: (DONE) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action10]

Yves: next f2f is at the technical plenary

felix: we could have a meeting at the technical plenary

<scribe> ACTION: everybody to think about f2f at tech plenary and see if they can make it or not [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action11]

yves: the other f2f:

A) Thursday May-18, Friday May-19, and Saturday May-20

B) or Sunday May-28, Monday May-29, and Tuesday May-30

C) or Monday May-29, Tuesday May-30, and Wednesday May-31

<damiend> W3C Tech plenary info : http://www.w3.org/2005/12/allgroupoverview.html

Yves: for me it does not matter if we make a f2f around xtech or around the www conference

Cl: the same for me

<scribe> ACTION: all to look at parameters for the f2f around www conference or xtech [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action12]

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to finalize and send his ITS use cases examples to Sebastian and Felix (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action13]

<scribe> ACTION: (medium term) Yves to explore constraint support in CSS and possibly contact a CSS guru. (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action14]

<scribe> ACTION: Update the Requirement wiki list and status (PENDING) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action15]

"Language Standards for Global Business"

felix reports on additional infos about the meeting

cl: as for the relation to XLIFF, they are creating profiles which encompass popular vocabularies

Yves: for ITS it would be easier to do
... at least for translatability
... that is, doing the modularizations is useful
... also, open source implementations are useful
... if you know others, please tell us

Felix: should we set up such a page?

Cl: we should discuss conformance criteria before setting up s.t. like that
... otherwise the interoperability might be harmed

Yves: yes, we need some test files to make the interoperability sure

Felix: so we better wait with this

Yves: for now we don't link to SR page, but maybe with the next publication

<YvesS> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=&product=ITS

going through bugzilla

<YvesS> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2621

Yves: do we need a conformance level "just in situ"?
... I can see the benefit of this, but I am also worried about it
... because we may have many limited ITS implementations

Damian: The precedence rules might be a little bit complicated

<chriLi> http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice8.html#conform

Yves: we might need a flag which says "this conformance is given"

Cl: xsl fo has three levels of conformance
... but the processors say in detail which properties they support

Yves: Does this make them conformant, to say that?

Cl: the providers of the implementations say that
... as for ITS, we could have a list of data categories, a list of mechanisms
... we could say "if you support the following combination, you would have basic conformant"

Yves: depending on the tool, not everything on ITS might be relevant
... for example "terminology" is not relevant for many translation tools, also not ruby

Cl: as for interoperability between tools, if we have a basic level of conformance, that will achieve a basic level of interoperability

<scribe> ACTION: felix to ask other w3c staff member about how to implement performance in general [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action16]

Yves: it is a different issue to have a kind of "flag" which indicates what an implementation can expect

on http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2620

Cl: the idea of metadata would not necessarily make things more complicated
... maybe we have a terminological misunderstanding
... if we have the information "this document uses only ITS in situ", that would be very helpful for processors

felix: could we not just check the document and see what is in the document?

Cl: it might be difficult for large documents

Yves: I think the processing time is no problem, it is more that it forces the user to target a specific type of conformance
... he knows that he only uses parts of ITS, which would help the author as well

<scribe> ACTION: Yves to make a sample for different levels of conformances, a way of distingushing the levels [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action17]

about modularization

Yves: we have a conference call with the DITA people next week
... they are agreeing with the they we are going, but they have a feedback that a translate attribute can be difficult for the users
... I would propose that Christian will be on the call as well

felix: I did not do anything on xmlspec since the f2f

Damian: I have not worked on open doc very much, but it has started

Yves: there are translation tools like omega-t which translate opendocument, so it would be great if we have a modularization with opendoc
... I did not do anything since the f2f

<scribe> ACTION: owners of the modularizations to keep them in mind [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/01/11-i18n-minutes.html#action18]

other business

felix: people are encouraged to participate in the xtech paper, if it is accepted

yves: Diane, I will come back to you with the techniques document

adjourn