Re: Versioning

Lieske, Christian wrote:
> 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.

It's o.k. to discuss Yves question, but I am also looking for feedback
on my proposal ;)

Do you think you could give that?

- Felix

> 
> 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
>>
> 
>