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

Re: Terminology to be used with ITS markup

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:06:53 +0900
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3tylrr6x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec>

Hi Christian,

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:04:20 +0900, Lieske, Christian  
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> While working on the task to write an introduction to selection
> (formerly know as "scoping") I made an observation related especially to
> using ITS with XML instances. This observation led me to a question
> related to the terminology we are currently using.
>
> In what follows, I use the term "host vocabulary" (please suggest a
> better one) to refer to the XML to which the ITS information is attached
> (e.g. XHTML, DITA or DocBook).

I like that term. "Host language" would be nice as well.

>
> Let's say I want to specify that all 'p' elements which are child
> elements of the 'body' element should not be translated. From my
> understanding, I could do this in at least three ways:
>
> 1. Value for "translate" _not_ in the host vocabulary _element_ to which
> it pertains (rather in a different element, namely, the 'body' element)
>
> <text>
> 	<head/>
> 	<body its:translate="no" its:translateSelector="./p">
> 		<p>xxxxx</p>
> 		<p>yyyyy</p>
> 	</body>
> </text>
>
> 2. Value for "translate" _in_ the host vocabulary _element_ to which it
> pertains (namely, the 'p' element)
>
> <text>
> 	<head/>
> 	<body its:translate="no">
> 		<p its:translate="no">xxxxx</p>
> 		<p its:translate="no">yyyyy</p>
> 	</body>
> </text>
>
> 3. Value for "translate" _not_ in the host vocabulary (rather in the ITS
> vocabulary)
>
> <text>
> 	<head>
> 		<its:documentRule its:translate="no"
> its:translateSelector="//p"/>
> 	 </head>
> 	</body>
> 		<p>xxxxx</p>
> 		<p>yyyyy</p>
> 	</body>
> </text>
>
> The question which arises out of this is the following: At least to my
> eye, the ITS in scenario 1.
> is somewhat dislocated. Following this line of thought, I of course get
> into trouble with our
> definition of 'dislocated' (namely 'selector used with "documentRule"';
> cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#scope-dislocated).
>
> I thus wonder, if alternative terms for talking about 1., 2., and 3. are
> necessary or come to mind. One possibility which entered my mind is the
> following:
>
> 1 = piggybacked/contingent (on host vocabulary) & ex situ ITS markup
> 2 = piggybacked/contingent (on host vocabulary) & in situ (in place) ITS
> markup
> 3 = autonomous ITS markup (neither data category nor selector in start
> tag of host vocabulary)
>
> The contingent/autonomous distinction seems to be similar to CSS
> (contingent=style attribute; autonomous=style element).
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
I share the opinion from Sebastian:

[["autonomous" for <its:documentRule> sems like a good word. As is
"contingent" for <p its:translate="no">. It's the
intermediate

  <body its:translate="no" its:translateSelector=".//p">

which is harder to describe. Perhaps use "contingent dislocated"
for that?]]

All would be fine with me.

Regards, Felix.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2006 12:07:03 UTC

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