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

RE: Conformance Section

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:48:22 +0100
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD1047A7506@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>

Hi everyone,

I definitely see conformance related to two entities:

1. content (e.g. a DTD which implements ITS markup)
2. code (e.g. a processor which computes ITS selection)

This, from my understanding corresponds to

1-FS schema conformance, which encompasses reading and writing
2-FS a processor which processes the full semantics of selections

I am not sure, however, that "schema conformance" is the best
way to talk about content-related conformance. Wouldn't it be
advantageous to destinguish content-related conformance along the
following lines:

A. Markup
B. Document types
C. Module implementations
D. Documents 

One way to come to grips with code-related conformance might
be to destinguish between

A. Non-interpreting processor
B. Interpreting processor

The latter would act according to the semantics of the processed
ITS markup (a translation editor may for example only turn sections
with information of "its:translate='yes'" into translatable segments).

A cross-classification for conformance (ie. one which is not based
on the content/code destinction) is related to conformance levels
(see Francois' requirement). From my understanding one possibility
for a definition of these levels would be the following: 

- list all ITS data categories
- list all selection mechanisms
- list all default mechanisms
- ...

Then, come up with some levels (e.g. level 1, level 2 and level 3) and
say which of the list elements (see above) need to be available for
conformance with a certain level. Example for code conformance:

Level 1: implemented support for "its:translate" without explicit
selector
Level 2: ...

Best regards,
Christian
-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Dienstag, 31. Januar 2006 06:15
To: Lieske, Christian
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Conformance Section

Hi Christian, cc'ing to public-i18n-its,

We should reformulate the conformance section, possibly before the next

meeting. I think the last point of discussion was the types of products.

If I remember right, you proposed

1-CL a reader / writer
2-CL a processor which processes the full semantics of selections

I proposed
1-FS schema conformance, which encompasses reading and writing
2-FS a processor which processes the full semantics of selections

Yves proposed in addition
1-YS a "visualizer"(?) which is responsible for the data categories
"bidi"  
and "ruby".

As an input for our action item, I would propose to have 1-FS, 2-CL
(which  
is 2-FS) and 1-YS as the products.

If we agree on this, we can talk in more detail what it means to be  
conformant to the products (although I think that will be no big deal I

think).

I guess the discussion point is only 1-CL vs 1-FS? My reason for 1-FS is
-  
as usual - that I would like to stick to established terminology.
"Schema  
conformance" and "validation" are in my perspective well established  
terms, whereas "reading and writing" is IMO too general.

Looking forward for the discussion. Regards, Felix.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 11:52:46 UTC

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