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

RE: Mandelieu Proposals

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:59:56 -0700
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003601c63f1e$929b5520$8f05a8c0@Breizh>

Thanks for the notes Felix.
Here are some thoughts:

> proposal-03:
> I would propose a separate element, since this could 
> have all attributes which are used for local ITS, like 
> the its:span element. Having these attributes directly 
> at the its:locInfoRule element would make it very messy.

No more than in <its:locInfo> :) But I'm not opposed to it: I was just wondering if there was some strong technical reason to have
the text there vs in the rule element itself. Using <its:locInfo> is fine with me.

> proposal-05:
> I see your point that the "mapping" proposal does not 
> give new functionality for the data categories translatability,
> directionality, and ruby. I see new functionality for 
> localization information, terminology and the xml:lang category.
> ...
> ruby base: <its:rubyBaseRule its:selector="//odf:rubyBase"/>
> ruby text: <its:rubyTextRule its:selector="//odf:rubyText"/>

Isn't the "Ruby" a single data category that is realized by encompssing whatever elements/attributes are needed? If so, why are you
now using two distinct rule elements for it? So far we have a one-to-one match between a rule and a data category. Also we would
potentially need more 'mapping' info for ruby (e.g. for <rp>).

> 3) "pass existing textual content trough".
> localization information: <its:locInfoRule its:selector="//*"
> its:locInfoContent="xyz:locInfo"/>
> terminology: <its:termRule its:selector="//qterm"
> its:termRefContent="@someTermReference"/>
> xml:lang: <its:langRule its:selector="//*"
> its:langContent="@someLangAttribute"/>
> I have used here the name "content" instead of "map", since this 
> functionality is I think what we achieved with the its:locInfoContent attribute.
> I think it depends how important 3) is for us, whether we want "map" (or
> "content") attributes in the case of localization information, terminology 
> and xml:lang.

Yes, there is quite a bit of a difference between 'pointing to a content' and 'mapping'.
I have nothing against having these "mappings" for these cases. I was only concerned with having two different way to handle things
like translatabbility.

Received on Saturday, 4 March 2006 00:00:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:08 UTC