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

RE: Action Item: http://www.w3.org/2006/04/19-i18nits-minutes.html#action01 (handling of inclusions)

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:24:37 +0200
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006201c66789$4c79a9a0$640fa8c0@Breizh>

Hi Christian, Sebastian, all,

> <note>
> The XPath expressions used by ITS selection assume that any inclusions 
> (such as those based on XInclude) are resolved before selection is 
> applied. Accordingly, inclusion mechanisms such as XInclude or DITA's 
> <gi>conref</gi> may need to be followed before ITS selections are 
> applied. </note>

Mmm... I thought we had reached the opposite conclusion (?)

I thought we would have something more like: "The ITS selection mechanism applies to the PSVI of the document. It is assumed that
inclusion mechanisms such as XInclude of DITA's conref are not taken in account when ITS selections are applied."

In the current wording I see the "may need" but the "assume... are resolved before selection" seems to indicate that a processor
does not have really a choice, and that 'may need' is really a 'must'.

It would be a bit un-realistic to ask all ITS processors (e.g. generic XML translation systems) to implement every inclusion
mechanism known (and the future ones...).

Another solution, as Sebastian proposed during the face-to-face, would be to not say anything, or say ITS does not care: it's a tool
choice. But this would open the door for interoperability issues. We do not want that.

How other application handle inclusion? We can't compare ITS to CSS here because CSS is applied at the very end of the whole
process, while ITS is applied at the beginning. XSLT would ignore inclusions, wouldn't it?

Cheers,
-yves
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 10:24:59 UTC

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