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

Re: Action item: summary of scope requirement

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:29:51 +0900
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, member-i18n-its@w3.org
Cc: "public-i18n-its@w3.org" <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.sywaf1jnx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

Hello Christian,

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:07:57 +0900, Lieske, Christian  
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>> From what I can see, Felix has done a great job wrt.
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/its0509SpecScoping#preview.
> Thanks for this Felix.
> Of course, in some cases we may be able to find an alternative wording
> (e.g. talk about
> 'Determination of Scope' rather than 'Processing of Scope'; see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice5.html#speccomact
> for some ideas).

I don't quite understand the relation to xsl, but maybe you can explain  
that later.

> The only thing that currently looks suspicious to me is the fact that we
> so far have not been able
> to come up with sth. which does not require a section on 'conflicts'.

That is the problem if you use XPath: you can do everything with it -  
which might lead to conflicts ... but I would propose to put this "not  
written in stone" solution out to the world and to get feedback if there  
is s.t. better ...

> I
> am also not quite sure
> that we should emphasize on Xpath 2.0 since this is still in WD stage.
> Best regards,
> Christian
> P.S.: I send this to 'members' rather than 'public' since Felix mail
> went to 'members'.

oh, that was a mistake - taking this also to the public list.


Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:30:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:06 UTC