RE: [election-services-comment] Eml meeting: internationalization support in eml.

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Actually I was just basing this off what the EML provides.

 

The MessagesStructure is a child of Description.  Therefore the intent would appear to be to use these messages in support of the proposal - not AS the proposal!  E.g. the Proposal item is the ballot text defined under the Proposal section, and if the voter needs clarification - then the Description text is available - to expand on what that proposal line is referring to.

 

We have the Proposal structure - and that provides ability to define proposal text and response items and link them all via ProposalIdentifier and ProposalName groups and select via Lang attribute. 

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [election-services-comment] Eml meeting: internationalization
support in eml.
From: Oliver Hernதez Valls <oliver.hernandez@scytl.com>
Date: Wed, June 13, 2007 10:40 am
To: election-services-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: David Mas <david.mas@scytl.com>

Hi all,
	By the comments of mister David Webber we understand that he is using a
message-per-language approach. Instead we would like to use a single
message-per-process at least for 110, 330 and 630. In some other cases
we will use a file localized in a single language for example in 410-
Ballots or 420-Authentication (message-per-language approach).

	After reading the Process-Data-Requirements, it seems there is no
standard approach for localizing messages. Or is it message-per-language
(this could explain this discussion)? If it is message-per-language why
then Messages/Message elements with a 'lang' attribute?

	Because the optionality of MessageLanguage in EMLstructure we can't
assume a message-per-attribute approach.

	In our modest opinion internationalization can be issued in 2 ways,
using a message-per-language approach or making all elements susceptible
to be shown to the user internationalizable.
	Is there an official EML approach for all messages? Does this approach
varies in each message (110, 230, 330...)?

	It will be a good thing to know the approach to be used in each case
because as EML is a standard there must be a standard way to
internationalize messages.


Best regards

-- 
______________________________
Oliver Hernàndez Valls
Software Engineer

Scytl Secure Electronic Voting

Tuset 20 · 08006 Barcelona 
Phone   + 34 934 230 324
Fax     + 34 933 251 028
www.scytl.com

NOTICE: The information in this e-mail and in any of its attachments is
confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or retaining of this message or any part of it,
without the prior written consent of Scytl Secure Electronic Voting, SA
is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this in error,
please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 


This publicly archived list offers a means to provide input to the
OASIS Election and Voter Services TC.

In order to verify user consent to the Feedback License terms and
to minimize spam in the list archive, subscription is required
before posting.

Subscribe: election-services-comment-subscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
Unsubscribe: election-services-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
List help: election-services-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
List archive:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/election-services-comment/
Feedback License: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
Committee:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=election