Re: its:idValue and xml:id

Am 04.07.13 09:07, schrieb Marc van Grootel:
> Hi Felix,
>
> Thanks that was very helpful. The its:annotatorsRef is exactly what I 
> need.
>
> I guess I have to adjust my perception of ITS a little bit. Until now 
> I saw it as two more or less independent parts.

That's understandable. From an implementers point of view having the 
interaction between global and local ITS 2.0 information is important, 
like with CSS style element and attribute. And hopefully the 
implementation report will give enough examples to show how things work.

> The rules/annotating part mechanism and the annotated document 
> (XML+ITS markup) as the result of the annotating process. But using 
> its:annotatorsRef enables me to do what I need.

Great.

Best,

Felix
>
> Thanks again,
> --Marc
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org 
> <mailto:fsasaki@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Marc,
>
>     sorry, some lengthy explanations below and a suggestion at the end.
>
>     Am 03.07.13 14:17, schrieb Marc van Grootel:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         I was working on some XSLT that adds ITS markup to an XML and
>         was wondering on how to explicitly add ID's that other generic
>         XSLT can pick up to process (e.g. a generic XML+ITS to XLIFF
>         conversion step).
>
>         In my case I'm not using the full power of ITS rules but
>         rather use it to make localization information explicit
>         available on the elements. The XSLT contains the rules in the
>         form of templates. It will add @its:translate to the
>         translatable elements.
>
>         Now when I look at how to provide an ID that a next step can
>         pick up I believe the spec wants me to add an @xml:id (8.14.2)
>
>
>     That is one way of making the ID information explicit, and, as you
>     said, the preferrable way. See also the related test in the
>     implementation report for ITS 2.0
>     http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20-implementation-report.html#t-idvalue2xml
>     and the statement in the spec
>     http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#idvalue-local
>
>     Think of this as CSS: you have two ways of providing a certain
>     type of style
>     style attribute (= ITS local, in your case xml:id) <span
>     style="color:red;">
>     style element (= ITS global, in your case it would be the
>     idValueRule) <style...> span {color: red;} </style>
>
>
>
>         Because I like to separate the processing that does the ITS
>         annotation from the XLIFF preparation as much as possible this
>         @xml:id in my opinion breaks this separation. A generic post
>         processing step cannot simply throw out all ITS namespaced
>         stuff to get back the original XML.
>
>
>     Correct. This is like in the CSS case: when a browser has set the
>     color of a "span" element, it doesn't know anymore whether that
>     was accomplished via a style element or attribute.
>
>
>         In case of added xml:id attributes it has no way of knowing if
>         this wasn't already present in the original or if it was added
>         by the ITS annotation step.
>
>         I always thought that this was valid use case of ITS. That you
>         could have an XML+ITS document where all ITS information is
>         made explicit on the elements itself and no ITS related
>         processing (like rule interpretation via its:idValue) was
>         needed to use it. Hence I rather expected to see an @its:id to
>         provide localization IDs.
>
>
>     For ITS data categories that provide local markup you can choose
>     to use only local markup and then do the roundtripping you
>     describe. For data categories like ID Value I would argue that
>     there is a good reason not to have local markup: ITS aims at being
>     as less invasive as possible. So inventing a local "its:id"
>     attribute instead of xml:id would break that approach, and put a
>     burden on non ITS, generic XML tools that understand xml:id or
>     HTML id. E.g. if you would have @its:id there would need to be an
>     additional step for viewing HTML content in the browser. With
>     re-using HTML id in ITS 2.0, that is not needed.
>
>
>
>         I haven't thought this through for other ITS datacategories
>         and rules but for simple stuff such as @its:translate,
>         @its:locNote etc.. I can work like that but not for IDs.
>
>
>     You want to identify the step in which Id information has been
>     added, right? ITS tool annotation
>     http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-tool-annotation
>     could help here:
>     <p its:annotatorsRef="id-value|myTool" xml:id="p1">...</p>
>     Of course this is more markup than one its:id attribute. But it
>     has the advantage that you can both fulfil your scenario (= strip
>     ITS 2.0 markup out) and re-use existing markup (= xml:id).
>
>     Hope that helps,
>
>     Felix
>
>
>         Any thoughts?
>
>         -- 
>         --Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> --Marc