ITS changelog

Hi Yves, all,

this is my fourth round of change implementations. It encompasses
proposals from Yves at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0153.html .

Some changes have been revised by Sebastian again, mainly on the
"global" terminology.



Some comments on Section 3.

1--- In the paragraph "The power of ITS selector attributes comes at a
price: rules related to overwriting/precedence, and
inheritance have to be established."
I would think "...related to overriding, precedence, and inheritance..."
would be better. (overriding rather than overwriting and a
comma). And I see the same "overwrite" vs "override" in example 8.
Real English speakers please correct me if I'm wrong for 'overriding': I
think this
(http://simplesamples.info/Miscellaneous/Overwriting.php0 explains it a
bit, but I'm not 100% sure which one is correct in this
context.

FS> I have changed "overwrite" to "override", and "overwriting" to
"overriding". But Sebastian reverted the change ....

2--- Shouldn't all the attribute and elements reference use an XMLSpec
specific markup that translates into a different font? (like
in section 1.3 paragraph 2).

FS> Yes. (is is an ODD / XMLSPEC specific markup, though :) Sebastian
has created such markup.

3--- Under example 7: "The examples show that ITS data category
attributes in some cases appear in elements defined by ITS itself:
"documentRule" (embedded within a "documentRules" element, "schemaRule".
It should "
The parenthesis is not closed and the sentence ending with "schemaRule"
looks truncated.

FS> I have changed the sentence.

4--- Paragraph after the second set of bullets under Example 7: "in
addition one or more ITS " should be (I think) "in addition to
one or more ITS..."

FS> Changed that.

5--- Paragraph above the bullets above Example 8: "ITS selector
attributes are very powerful. They allow:" I think we should just
say "ITS selector attributes allow:". The "are very powerful" seems
arbitrary: it's a matter of opinion that we probably should
avoid in a specification :)

FS> I agree and have changed that.

6--- In example 6: "<dita:title>Some little topic</dita:title>". The
text should probably be changed to something more meangingful.

FS> I changed this to <dita:title>ITS and Namespaces</dita:title> and
<dita:p>An <dita:term>ITS namespace</dita:term> definition exists
....</dita:p>  .


That's all for that section.
(which is a good one I thought)

FS> +1.