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

RE: Versioning

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 08:15:30 -0600
To: "'Lieske, Christian'" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000a01c65984$90161800$8f05a8c0@Breizh>

Hi Christian, all,
>> 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? 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.

Then rule 2 wins. It's no different than having several external files with <rules>: for example one in the schema of the host
format (made by the schema developer), one external made for the specific project the document is part of (to override some specific
cases), one internal to the file made by the author. From a processing viewpoint one just gather all rules, and process them, then
process the file content: how many <rules> are there does not technically matter much.

In the other hand, yes, it's rather messy to have several occurences of <rules> in the same document: it's more difficult to manage
or understand for the human.

There is no way to force the use of a single <rules> per document except by a statement. Maybe we should go that way. I have no
strong opinion one way or the other.
Any thoughts anyone?

Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 14:15:45 UTC

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