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

Re: ITS "Products"

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:45:56 +0900
To: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s3w0qux1x1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Hi Yves, all,

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:51:53 +0900, Yves Savourel  
<ysavourel@translate.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> One of my action items was to come up with a draft list of "products"  
> for ITS, here it is:
>
> 1- ITS processor: an application capable of reading or writing ITS valid  
> markup, and generating error on invalid ITS markup.

the reading part of this processor is the same as what I called "ITS  
markup declarations" at http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2761  
, I think. That is after all a schema validator, right? I don't know what  
you mean by writing ITS markup? Do we have to define how to write the  
markup, or can't we just leave that to the user of ITS?

>
> 2- ITS rendering processor: an application capable of rendering ruby and  
> bi-di text based on the relevant ITS information.

I don't know if we really want to define such a product. I guess we have  
to, but maybe we don't need to go into details, because so much work has  
already been made in other specs (the ruby spec, the HTML spec for bidi).  
Maybe it would even be enough to point to these specs for the  
directionality and ruby data categories. In that they, we could get rid of  
this processor. What do you think?

>
> 3- ITS translation processor: an application capable of identifying  
> translatable parts of XML documents using all the relevant ITS
> markup.
>
> 4- ITS translation basic processor: an application capable of  
> identifying translatable parts of XML documents containing only in
> situ attributes without selectors. [I'm not sure if we want this one]

I would say "no" :) - because IMO it makes no difference if we have  
selector attributes or not. There will be a default selection anyway.

So to have 1) and 3) as processors / products would be great.

>
> Not great, but it's a start...

That's a great start, and it helps the conformance issue a lot.

Cheers,
Felix
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 03:46:05 UTC

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