W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2005

[ESW Wiki] Update of "its0503ReqCDATA" by MasakiItagaki

From: <w3t-archive+esw-wiki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 05:04:17 -0000
To: w3t-archive+esw-wiki@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050428050417.28434.80663@swada.w3.org>
Dear Wiki user,

You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "ESW Wiki" for change notification.

The following page has been changed by MasakiItagaki:

  '''[YS] Actually, after some more thinking (and a recent real-life case), I wonder if using CDATA is not wiser if you have HTML codes in the text that are 'seen' as text. (like: '<![CDATA[This is <b>bold</b>]]>' because it let you--in some cases--work around the problem more efficiently. If you replace all the '<![CDATA[' by '<cdata>' (or whatever tag) and ']]>' by '</cdata>', the content becomes parsable by XML filters (if the codes are XHTML) or by HTML parsers (if the codes are HTML) as most HTML filter can process XML input too. After translation we just put back the CDATA notation as it was. We had such a case this week, and we were able to prepare the file in minutes, something that we would not have been able to do if the content would have been 'This is &lt;b>bold&lt;/b>'. Obviously it's only one case, but maybe when we will come up with a recommendation for CDATA we should be careful about our guidelines. Maybe something to keep in a note for this requirement?'''
+ '''[MI] Even with such an approach, still the issue of ''...these escaped sections cannot be marked up using the XML ITS...'' is there. I still think that this requirement is purely for a guideline, not for a solution. If that's the case, we should just leave this requirement as it states issues. Then we build detail guidelines (''Don't use'', ''Don't expect'', whatever...) in the recommendation.'''
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2005 05:04:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:04 UTC