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

Re: [Bug 2621] On conformance levels: Have a simple conformance: in situ, with default selectors

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:38:45 +0900
To: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk>, bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3bj6vbnx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:33:44 +0900, Sebastian Rahtz  
<sebastian.rahtz@oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org wrote:
>
>> I am wondering if that would be useful
>> for us: Having just two conformance levels (1: markup conformance, 2:  
>> ITS
>> processing conformance), and defining for (2) in detail what it means -  
>> without
>> any optional features.
>>
> I am not 100% sure I understand this. Does conformance level
> 1 simply mean that the application does not reject an ITS-enriched
> document? and it may do something with the markup, undefined?

Sorry for being unclear. Conformance level one is identical to what is  
already in the draft, see http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#schema-conformance :  
You are conformant if you add the ITS declarations for data categories to  
your schema, and your instances are valid against the schema. The thing is  
that we have not yet defined what an "ITS application", see also my  
bugzilla comment at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2621#c4  
, starting with "One important difference ...". I think our discussion  
about conformance is unconciously (?!?) a discussion about what an ITS  
processor should do :)


>
> Whereas level 2 would mean that you have to take account of
> all ITS info; but what does that mean? we cant define the behaviour,
> because thats tool dependent.

my point for level to is that we have to define the behavior of an "ITS  
processor". The processor can be part of a tool, like an SVG engine can be  
part of a browser. Even if we don't called it a processor: after all we  
are specifying processing behavior which goes beyong validation against  
the ITS schema.

Regards, Felix.
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 13:39:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:06 UTC