W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > November 2014

Re: ITS Module namespace

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 12:41:57 +0000
Message-ID: <CANw5LKm8JdM4eK-WdHPp12dAnxj6hKUj64b9KaTd029DVRQtwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
CC: public-i18n-its-ig <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Thanks, Yves,

while it is OK to have a discussion of pros and cons here. The decision is
made by the XLIFF TC, so I'd expect that we'd be trying to reach the naming
consensus on the the xliff list.

I am not sure about the argument of confusion of the average end user. I do
not know who is the average end user. Who are end users of XML standards?
And should we assume that they are not going to check a namespace
declaration?

We had a similar discussion before at XLIFF TC, whether Ryan should be
allowed to use the same element name as core in the resource module, and we
said the standard is not for recreational XML users and it should be clear
enough that the resource module <source> is a different <source> than the
core <source>.

I agree that communications should be simple and consistent. So we may even
include a Warning in the XLIFF 2.1 module saying that throughout the
specification, in the examples, test files etc the its: namespace prefix
indicates urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1 rather than the w3c "http"
namespace.
We could use something like w3cits, if we needed to reference the original
w3c namespace.

xits sounds and looks as a custom-made private thing, if anything should be
prefixed it should indicate that it is an OASIS namespace rather than x.. I
know that x here is meant to mean xliff but the primary connotations with x
are rather extensible, xml, or private if anything.. so I do not see this
adding to clarity in the naming.
"oits" would be probably too cryptic and "oasisits" too long. So for me the
ideal (clear and consistent) solution seems to be using "its" both for
fragid prefix and example namespace prefix for urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:
its:2.1

The ITS module will be THE way how to work with ITS in XLIFF and the w3c
namespace will not need to be mentioned at all or relatively infrequently.
The ITS extensions will become pretty much illegal, no one registered them
for fragid and they will only be legal for purposes not covered by the
module, so pretty much none..

Also, as hinted above, wrt the prefix, there are 2 different prefixes from
XLIFF point of view, one is the fragid prefix that is not arbitrary and the
other is the namespace prefix that is. Again I think that the XLIFF module
prefix should be "its" and if a prefix for ITS as extension should be
registered for some purposes not covered by the module at a later stage,
the prefix should be w3cits, or even better category specific, eg. "taits"
if the purpose to be covered worked with text analytics etc.

Cheers and talk to you later today
dF

Dr. David Filip
=======================
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer
LRC | CNGL | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

> I think Felix had a point here:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0052.html
> Using “its” may be confusing to the end-users: the XLIFF module defines
> both more and less than the ITS namespace, so I can see that using “its”
> can confuse an average end-user.
>
> Obviously prefixes are arbitrary, but consistency and conventions help a
> lot communication.
>
>
>
> Personally I don’t care much what the ITS module’s URI and the default
> prefix are, as long as they are consistent and that we define them once for
> all very soon.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> -yves
>
>
>
> *From:* David Filip [mailto:davidf@davidf.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 8, 2014 6:54 PM
> *To:* Phil Ritchie
> *Cc:* public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Yves Savourel
> *Subject:* RE: ITS Module namespace
>
>
>
> I don't see a value in calling the namespace anything else than its. The
> OASIS namespace is clearly a different namespace than the w3c one and
> prefixes are anyway arbitrary..
>
> dF is AFK, so please bear with the typos and call me at +353860222158 if
> my answer seems insufficient..
>
> +1 for "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com]
> Sent: 07 November 2014 13:10
> To: 'public-i18n-its-ig'
> Subject: ITS Module namespace
>
> Hi all,
>
> Currently the 2.1 draft uses "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1" for the
> ITS module URI and "its" for the recommended prefix. We discussed a
> different prefix to avoid confusion with the traditional "its" prefix.
>
> Should we then use "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits" in the
> specification?
>
> Deciding soon will help avoid having to fix unit tests and examples later.
>
> Thanks,
> -yves
>
> ------------------------------
>
> VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483.
>
> Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham.
> Dublin 8. Ireland.
>
> The information contained in this message, including any accompanying
> documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). The
> unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is
> strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in error please
> notify the sender immediately.
> ------------------------------
>
Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 12:43:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:31 UTC