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

Re: Selection and Ruby

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:48:15 +0900
To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.s4lj6plpx1753t@ibm-60d333fc0ec.mag.keio.ac.jp>

Hi Christian,

I don't remember if Richard said this within the group, but from my  
understanding compatibility with the existing ruby specification has very  
high priority. At the December f2f we decided for this reason to have only  
a selector solution for "legacy" attribute content, see  
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset#ruby-sec . Does  
your proposal take that decision into account? See also  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0040.html  
(search for "4.5.2 New subheading "Handling legacy content").

Regards, Felix.

On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:06:09 +0900, Lieske, Christian  
<christian.lieske@sap.com> wrote:

>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been pondering about an observation related to Ruby which I made
> quite a while ago ...
>
> An example which reflects our current proposal for Ruby looks as
> follows:
>
> <dita:topic xmlns:dita="http://dita.oasis-open.org/architecture/2005/"
>  xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
>  DITAArchVersion="1.0" id="myTopic">
>  <dita:title>Some little topic</dita:title>
>  <dita:body>
>   <dita:p>This is about the
> 	<its:ruby>
> 		<its:rubyBase>W3C</its:rubyBase>
> 	<its:rubyText>World Wide Web Consortium</its:rubyText>
> 	</its:ruby>
>  .</dita:p>
>  </dita:body>
> </dita:topic>
>
>> From my understanding, "rubyBase" plays a role in what we have termed
> "selection".
> Following this line of thought, one arrives at the following
> observations:
>
> 1. we have a different selection mechanism for Ruby than for other data
> categories
> 2. we a selector with contingent ITS markup (put differently: "rubyBase"
> which serves
>    as a kind of designator for the "target" of the annotation in
> "rubyText" appears
>    inside the host vocabulary, not in a "documentRule" or "schemaRule")
>
> I wonder, if this observation is a valid one and whether we need to act
> upon it.
>
> If we would draw an analogy to the solution we have e.g. for the
> "translatability" data category, we could for example come up with the
> following:
>
> <dita:topic xmlns:dita="http://dita.oasis-open.org/architecture/2005/"
>  xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
>  DITAArchVersion="1.0" id="myTopic">
>  <dita:title>Some little topic</dita:title>
>  <its:documentRules>
>   <its:documentRule its:ruby="World Wide Web Consortium"
> its:rubySelector="its:rubyBase[id='42']" />
>  </its:documentRules>
>  <dita:body>
>   <dita:p>This is about the <its:rubyBase id="42
> ">W3C</its:rubyBase>.</dita:p>
>  </dita:body>
> </dita:topic>
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 09:48:25 UTC

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