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

RE: Terminology to be used with ITS markup (II)

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:40:57 +0100
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD1047190DD@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Cc: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>

Hi there,

Please find my comments (starting with "CL>") below.

Best regards,
Christian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Montag, 23. Januar 2006 15:57
To: Lieske, Christian; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Re: Terminology to be used with ITS markup (II)

Hi Christian,

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:44:36 +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 a general observation: from
> my understanding we might benefit from one or two changes related
> to the terminology we use.
>
> Let's start with the following question:
>
> 	What is ITS markup meant to do?

just one remark here: ITS markup can be used without selection, and that

seems to be a quite commen use case. So I don't know if this is the
right  
question for the section on selection.

CL> I agree with the "ITS markup can be used without selection" bit.
CL> As mentioned, I found the need to come grips with terminology when
CL> working on the section for selection. Of course, the section might
CL> not be the place that ultimately tackles that addresses the
CL> observations I made.

>> From my understanding, the ITS markup captures information related
> to i18n or l10n. Following this line of thought, sth. like
>
> 	<body its:translate="no" translateSelector="./p">
>
> can be analyzed two-fold, namely either as markup or as information
> captured by ITS markup.
>
> With respect to the view "this is ITS markup", we have to dive down
> a bit. To me, it seems appropriate to destinguish:
>
> 	A. Data category identifier: "its:translate"
> 	B. Data category value: "no"
> 	C. Data category selector: "translateSelector"
>
> The view "this is ITS information" could be captured by prose like the
> following:
>
> 	The ITS markup 'its:translate="no"' captures the information
> that
> 	something should not be translated.
>
> I wonder if it is just me who senses a need to capture the two
possible
> views
> (markup vs. information).

to make a difference between markup versus information is fine. But I  
don't see the real difference between information and data category
here,  
since you could say also markup versus data category. In any case, I
would  
strongly disagree with your differentiation A., B. and C. above, since  
this looks like a semi-formalization of data categories we don't have.
We  
can discuss that, but not while creating a summary :) . But if you want
to  
discuss it: what would be A., B. C. for the ruby data category?

CL> To me ITS information and ITS data categories should and could be
CL> destinguished:
CL>
CL> a. ITS information: ITS information in an XML instance or a schema
CL> b. ITS data category: sth. described in ITS document
(http://www.w3.org/TR/its/)
CL>
CL> I am not sure that we don't have a 'semi-formalization' yet. Doesn't
CL> section 6 (Markup Declarations) of http://www.w3.org/TR/its/ work
along the
CL> lines of a formalization?
CL>
CL> What we are lacking from my understanding are a couple of terms to
talk
CL> about ITS markup in XML instances or schemas. A slightly different
view
CL> on the terms (see A. - C. above) is the following:
CL>
CL> 	A. ITS category: "its:translate"
CL> 	B. ITS value (simple): "no"
CL> 	C. ITS selector: "translateSelector"
CL>	D. ITS match: "./p" 
CL>   E. ITS contingent block: 'its:translate="no"
translateSelector="./p"'
CL>   F. ITS autonomous block: ITS markup contained in documentRule or
schemaRule (including the rule elements themselves
CL>
CL> With this proposal, and a destinction between simple and complex ITS
values, a ruby example like
CL>
CL> <body>
CL>  <p>This is about the 
CL>	<its:ruby><its:rubyBase>W3C</its:rubyBase><its:rubyText>World
Wide Web Consortium</its:rubyText></its:ruby>
CL> .</p>
CL> </body>
CL>
CL> could be described as follows:
CL>
CL> 	A. ITS category: "its:ruby"
CL> 	B. ITS value (complex): World Wide Web Consortium - implicit
(via <its:rubyText>)
CL> 	C. ITS selector: implicit (via "its:rubyBase")
CL>	D. ITS match: W3C - implicit (via "its:rubyBase")

Regards, Felix.

>
>> From my understanding, we would benefit from a distinction (which
could
> be captured by using two different terms to talk about it), and an
> accompanying
> set of terms to talk about the three possible parts of ITS markup (see
> above).
> Of course, I would be in favour of following terminology established
by
> other
> groups (however, so far I have not been able to research into this).
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 11:41:18 UTC

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