W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Versioning

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 15:30:56 +0200
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD104DB04FF@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC