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

Re: Versioning

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 23:37:44 +0900
Message-ID: <443527B8.5000505@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Cc: "'Lieske, Christian'" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Yves Savourel wrote:
>>> I still see a need for a version attribute on the rules element 
>>> (beneficial for example for linked rules files since those files 
>>> otherwise would not have an indicator to which version they belong).
>> we decided to link via a xlink attribute which points to a file. 
>> If the top element of that file has a version attribute, you will 
>> take the version. If not, the version is the one indicated at the 
>> top element of the including file.
>>
>> Where is the problem / tricky case with this solution?
>>
> CL> The top-level elements of the file to which the xlink goes is
> CL> "rules", right?
> CL> In that case, you would have/need the version element on "rules".
> 
> Mmmm... It could be (and I think it will be in most of the cases).
> 
> But so far I have assumed you could also link to files that have <rules> but are not necessarily only that. For example you could
> link to the XML Schema, couldn't you?
> Or to some kind of user-defined XML document that include ITS rules along with other things (general instructions for the localizer,
> whatever...). The ITS processor would not care sinnce it looks only to the <rules> element(s?) there.

I assumed the same, and think that even if the external file has the
<rules> files as the root element, it would not need special treatment.

- Felix

> 
> -ys
> 
> 
> 



Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 14:38:47 UTC

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