See also: IRC log
<fsasaki> - having Christian editing the doc until next Monday - vote for publication 6 March call - publication 8 March
<fsasaki> next monday = 4 march
fsasaki: publishing march 8. last
date before the workshop
... Please go through your use cases
Yves_: there is discrepancy in
behavior between different data categories in HTML
... when an author marks up a document because of different behavior in different tools
... we don't specify things like the <b> element should be withinText
<fsasaki> ITS 1.0 global rules are at http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-i18n-bp/#relating-its-plus-xhtml
Yves_: we could have a set of global rules
for HTML that implementors must use
... if you don't implement global rules, this won't work. instead have default attributes
<fsasaki> default implementation proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0235.html
Yves_: implementation of such defaults is probably difficult
Yves_: implementation is not a problem for okapi
pnietoca: some MT systems hardcode translation of some attributes
Yves_: currently html translate affects attribute and its:translate does not
kfritsche: in our implementation, we use non HTML specific defaults from the ITS spec, sec. 8.1
<Marcis> Will there be a list of defaults somewhere specified? We are currently adding Elements Within Text rules within HTML documents...
pnietoca: we use global rules for
translate, for instance.
... if some people don't use it, you have to hardcode which attributes to translate
kfritsche: is this the proposal to change the default values in table 8.1?
Yves_: proposal is to have in the html specification information on defaults
fsasaki: or we could provide a
global rules file
... I was proposing the defaults for people only doing its locally
Yves_: there's a discrepancy
between defaults and global rules because of overriding
... people who don't implement ITS globally just have to make sure the behavior with defaults matches what it would be with default values
<fsasaki> shaun: issue of not knowing what you are overriding with local attributes - that is an issue with any format right?
<fsasaki> yves: yes
<fsasaki> shaun: who are the implementers who don't do global rules?
<fsasaki> it seems everybody of the implementers currently on the table, do global rules
<fsasaki> karl: new implementers might do local markup only - we should be aware of that
<fsasaki> shaun: there is no implementation difficulty for me either way
fsasaki: propose not to close
this issue too fast
... other people not on the call might have different opinions
Yves_: implementors could look at their implementations to see how difficult defaults versus global rules is
fsasaki: give implementors time, come back to issue next wednesday
<daveL> apologies for joining late
<fsasaki> see draft + example files here http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0221.html
tadej: no major contents changes.
sent a draft to the mailing list
... we are dropping granularity levels, renaming to text analysis, clarified some
<fsasaki> ACTION: christian to edit issue-68 proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0221.html into the its2 draft [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/02/25-mlw-lt-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-451 - Edit issue-68 proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0221.html into the its2 draft [on Christian Lieske - due 2013-03-04].
omstefanov: all the file names in the test suite still refer to disambiguation
tadej: should we rename all the files?
leroy: yes, and move to directories named for the category
fsasaki: needs input from Phil. Phil not present today
daveL: xliff round-trip examples
for rome help use work through some issues
... we need separate discussions on how best to present that as best practices. don't spend time on that now. maybe in rome
Yves_: while discussing terminology, we realized when you tag something in xliff, we don't have a way to mark it up with ITS in the original document
<Marcis> A question: if we add mark-up to XLIFF, should we use the mrk or its:span annotation?
daveL: in XLIFF we can add things after authoring time; don't have local markup for these in ITS
<Yves_> to marcis: <mrk> (you can't have <its:span> in XLIFF)
Yves_: you can add ITS attributes to <mrk>. some are redundant with XLIFF attributes
daveL: three use cases: mapping
from source format to XLIFF, mapping from XLIFF to target
format, marking up XLIFF to be consumed in XLIFF in another
... ideally have the same markup in all those cases, but might not be possible
fsasaki: don't require normalization in other technologies. propose to close issue
daveL: expanded that out of
example in NIF
... took a Relax NG schema and went through data categories to see which could be used in RDF and NIF
... appreciate feedback
... haven't figured out what we need to do with annotators ref. works out in provenance setting, but maybe not NIF
... problems where we've introduced idea that order has temporal relationship
fsasaki: have a call to prepare for rome meeting. please fill in doodle poll