In the context of the discussion about having a mandatory config file, I
proposed to simplify matters even further and have just one config file, with
the note that this proposal could be ignored in the interest of time and/or
effort. There are pros and cons to both approaches, as Marcos has it
On Mar 19, 2009, at 12:06 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Welch
wrote:
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought
the XML i18n
guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the c
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Alright, lets see a show of hands for this approach! Who supports us
> just having a single config.xml with a bunch of repeated elements, but
> with different xml:langs?
opposed
Hi Benoit,
On 3/20/09 12:48 PM, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS wrote:
I believe that when creating content, it is easier/clearer to have multiple
files. There is less confusion and therfore less errors.
sure... but,
Advantages here are:
* we only need to make very small modifications to the
.suza...@orange-ftgroup.com
>
> From: Marcos Caceres
> Reply-To:
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:06:31 +0100
> To: Andrew Welch
> Cc: , ,
>
> Subject: Re: [widgets] Further argument for making config.xml mandatory
> Resent-From:
> Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:
In my previous email, I included a note that said:
"Note: Some elements marked as not being localizable via xml:lang, such
as screenshot and icon elements, are localizable via folder-based
content localization."
I've thought about it some more, and concluded that screenshot and
icon are actually
Ok, here is my first crack at specifying this...If you prefer to read
it in the spec (so you can follow any cross references, etc), then
please check out:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#element-based-content-localization
[[
==Element-based Content Localization==
This specification defines th
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM, wrote:
> The reason why the I18N BP document frowns upon this is because if you have
> the material sent for translation, it might (or most probably will) be
> translated by different people in different places. So it makes coordination
> a little difficult when a
On 19.3.2009 17.43, "ext Marcos Caceres" wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
>> To be clear, the proposal is:
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets";>
>> Mon widget
>> My Widget
>> Widget
>>
>
> heh... be careful that looks very similar to this "Best Practice":
>
> "Avo
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
>> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML
>> i18n
>> guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
>
> Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code
> sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts..
> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML i18n
> guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code
sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts my bad.
> However, Addison Phillips, the
> Chair of i18n cor
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
>> To be clear, the proposal is:
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets";>
>> Mon widget
>> My Widget
>> Widget
>>
>
> heh... be careful that looks very similar to this "Best Practice":
>
> "Avoid document formats that store multiple localized v
> To be clear, the proposal is:
> http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets";>
> Mon widget
> My Widget
> Widget
>
heh... be careful that looks very similar to this "Best Practice":
"Avoid document formats that store multiple localized versions of
content within the same document."
http://www.w3.org/T
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
>> I still think that more than one config document is the most confusing
>> aspect of this. Having just one (mandatory) config document, with the
>> localized parts tagged with xml:lang attributes w
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
> I still think that more than one config document is the most confusing
> aspect of this. Having just one (mandatory) config document, with the
> localized parts tagged with xml:lang attributes would be the simplest.
> However, as I understand it, the sepa
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Andrew Welch wrote:
>>> Other suggestions are of course welcome!
>>>
>>> One alternative would be to separate out the non-localisable data into a
>>> separate document, eg manifest.xml... But this is also likely to irritate
>>> implementers :(
>>>
>>
>> No, the W
I still think that more than one config document is the most confusing aspect
of this. Having just one (mandatory) config document, with the localized parts
tagged with xml:lang attributes would be the simplest. However, as I understand
it, the separate config files were recommended by the W3C I
>> Other suggestions are of course welcome!
>>
>> One alternative would be to separate out the non-localisable data into a
>> separate document, eg manifest.xml... But this is also likely to irritate
>> implementers :(
>>
>
> No, the WG are saving manifest.xml for an actual manifest format. Lets
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
wrote:
>>FWIW, I think this will confuse authors... and irritate the
>>poor souls who need to implement this :)
>
> Other suggestions are of course welcome!
>
> One alternative would be to separate out the non-localisable data into a
> se
ritate
implementers :(
>-Original Message-
>From: marcosscace...@gmail.com
>[mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
>Sent: 19 March 2009 14:25
>To: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
>Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
>Subject: Re: [widgets] Further arg
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
wrote:
> Hi Marcos, All,
>
> I would like to raise a comment in support of making the configuration
> document at the root of the widget mandatory.
>
> The localisation model currently described by [1] allows for multiple
> configuration d
Hi Marcos, All,
I would like to raise a comment in support of making the configuration
document at the root of the widget mandatory.
The localisation model currently described by [1] allows for multiple
configuration documents; zero or one at the root of the widget and zero
or one at the root o
22 matches
Mail list logo
