W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Streaming ITS processor

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:06:50 +0900
Message-ID: <4854874A.20305@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
CC: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org

Yves Savourel さんは書きました:
> Hi all,
>> I've cretated a Wiki page
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS_Simplified_XPath
>> linked from
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS_Processing
>> Which contains a proposal for a simplified EBNF. Asgeir or others: 
>> Could you see if it fits your needs, and edit the page accordingly? 
>> If you have problems with the Wiki account please tell me.
> Would this simplified notation be still in line with the requirement that 'pointer' attributes must be relative?

You are right, all what is in the production
FullPath ::= RPath | Root | IDPath
does not fit with that requirement. So a selector attribute would be
restricted to FullPath, and a pointer attribute to SubPath.
Or were you concerned about a different part of the ABNF?


> See second bullet in section 5.2.1 of the ITS spec: <http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#selection-global>
> "Attributes that point to existing information in the document, i.e. attributes whose name ends in ...Pointer, MUST use a
> RelativeLocationPath as described in XPath 1.0 or its successor. The XPath expression is evaluated relative to the nodes selected by
> the selector attribute. The following attributes point to existing information: locNotePointer, locNoteRefPointer, termInfoPointer,
> termInfoRefPointer, rubyPointer, rtPointer, rpPointer, rbcPointer, rtcPointer, rbspanPointer, langPointer."
> At a first glance it seems it does not (but I may read the EBNF incorrectly). If it is the case, such notation may be OK with the
> 'selector' attributes, but may not be always enough for the 'pointer' attributes.
> Cheers,
> -yves
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2008 12:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:27 UTC