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

RE: Selection and Ruby

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:53:36 +0100
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD104822703@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>

Hi Felix,

We might have a misunderstanding here: I am not proposing
something. I just note an observation. A proposal would
need to discuss the compatibility requirements you are
mentioning (which by the way really prevented me from
making a proposal ;-) ).

Best regards,
Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Dienstag, 7. Februar 2006 10:48
To: Lieske, Christian; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Re: Selection and Ruby

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 09:54:11 UTC

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