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

RE: Possible wording for acknowledged but yet uncovered requirement related to non-textual content

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:40:47 +0200
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD104F38CA2@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>

Fine with me. However, I guess Yves would have to update the
requirements document since he (from my understanding) is working on
this anyhow.


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 26. April 2006 17:32
To: Lieske, Christian
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Re: Possible wording for acknowledged but yet uncovered
requirement related to non-textual content

Hi Christian, all,

Lieske, Christian wrote:
> Hi Felix,
> I promised to send this during today's conference call. It combines
> stuff from my original mail, and some of Felix' feedback. I am not
> at all wrt. the correct wording for the last sentence.
> Best regards,
> Christian
> ---
> In certain cases, it is necessary to attach ITS information to element
> or attribute nodes (as opposed to text nodes). An information
> may for example have to express that all images (which in his XML
> vocabulary are referenced via an "src" attribute on an "img" element)
> have to be localized (since they for example are only valid for a
> certain culture). 
> From the point of view of ITS selection, this requirement poses a
> challenge since the default selection of the ITS data categories and
> use of XPath do not cater for the attachment mechanism that is needed.
> Furthermore, it requires specific thoughts related to precedence and
> inheritance.
> The ITS Working Group intend to discuss appropriate mechanisms.

What you wrote is worded very similar to the other requirements in the
requirements document, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-itsreq-20051122/
. How about putting your paragraph into that document? At
, we have a link to requirements which are not addressed yet.

I would strongly disagree with putting that text, namely about a
not-addressed requirement, in the last call draft. There are many people
who will just beat us up saying "what is your concept of last call"?

Regards, Felix.
Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 15:41:01 UTC

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