- From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:30:56 +0200
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Cc: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Hi Felix, It indeed is a somewhat different question. However, it addresses the assumption on which Yves' question is based. If the assumption does not hold, Yves' question may not be relevant any longer. Best, Christian -----Original Message----- From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] Sent: Donnerstag, 6. April 2006 15:25 To: Lieske, Christian Cc: Yves Savourel; public-i18n-its@w3.org Subject: Re: Versioning Hi Christian, Lieske, Christian wrote: > Hi Yves and all, > > Question related to > >> what if there are several <rules> elements in the document? (it's not > forbidden, and may be caused by tools >> automatically inserting <rules>). > > Do we really want to allow for this? I think this is a different question than the versioning mechanism. What do you think about the mechanism I proposed? Cheers, Felix > Don't we open a can of worms since > for example we would need to say > sth. about possible contradictions between statements in different > "rules". Think for example of the case > where rule set 1 specifies all "p" to be translated whereas rule set 2 > specifies all "p" as _not_ to be > translated. > > Best regards, > Christian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] > *Sent:* Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 18:03 > *To:* Lieske, Christian; 'Felix Sasaki'; diane.m.stoick@boeing.com > *Cc:* public-i18n-its@w3.org > *Subject:* Versioning > > Hi Christian, Felix, Diane, > > A follow up on the version topic. We didn't thought about some cases > that makes our current consensus a bit arguable: what if there are > several <rules> elements in the document? (it's not forbidden, and > may be caused by tools automatically inserting <rules>). > > Currently we have: > > #1: If there is only ITS local markup in the document, the > its:version goes in the root element of the document. > > #2: If there is a <rules> element (with or without additional local > markup), the its:version goes in the <rules> element, not in the > root of the document. > > Issues: > > --> If 'somehow' a document has an its:version both in the root of > the document and in the <rules> element, I assume the one in the > root element should be ignored (but things would change if later we > decide to allow multiple verisons) > > --> If you have two or more <rules> elements, the its:version in the > first <rules> should prevail? Or each version prevails for its > <rules>? And which one applies the the local markup? > > > I realize that these cases are related to the "do we allows ITS of > different versions to be processed together" discussion that we said > was premature, but it seems very difficult to apply our current > consensus to those two issues without knowing the answer to the > question. > > I'm a bit concern that all this seems quite confusing compare to > just have one its:version in the root element in all cases... (which > also makes the "do we allows ITS of different versions to be > processed together" question much easier to resolve by restricting > the possibilities of different versions to one per document at most). > > Any comment? > -yves >
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 13:35:22 UTC