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

RE: ITS and XHTML 1.0

From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:59:23 +0100
Message-ID: <0F568FE519230641B5F84502E0979DD104B98562@dewdfe12.wdf.sap.corp>
To: "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>, "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>

Hi there,

A comment on "dt" ... 

The point to me is the following: Many people still seem to be using XHTML in such a way that they get nice formatting (as opposed to somewhat capturing semantics such as "this is a heading"). Some may even do this consistently ;-) Thus, some may use "dt" the way it should be used, some (mis)use it arbitrarily, and some (mis)use it consistently.

When recommending an ITS modularization for XHTML, from my point of view only the first of these uses should be addressed. Accordingly, I don't find anything wrong with Yves' original propopal.

However, one issue exists: 

Very often, you do not only need to say "my dts are terms"

 <its:termRule its:selector="//xhtml:dt">

Rather, you may also want to say in addtion "all p of a certain class are terms"

 <its:termRule its:selector="//xhtml:p[class='foo']">

I wonder how we could take care of this (please shout if this scenario is not relevant).

Best regards,
Christian

-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Mittwoch, 15. März 2006 17:36
To: 'Richard Ishida'; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: RE: ITS and XHTML 1.0


> I think the input element needs some additional 
> work based on the type attribute.  I think 
> that in some cases the value attribute should 
> *not* be translated, since this is typically 
> what is passed to scripts.

I believe you are correct.
I'll try to add these cases in the next round with the text I owe to Felix.


> Hmm. The termrule for dt might be assuming too 
> much. I rarely use dt for terminology.

And you're probably not the only one... I'll remove it.


> Why do we have so many withinText rules.
> Why not just one?

Just to test that my implementation was able to deal with a collection of such rules rather than just one.


Cheers,
-ys
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:59:39 UTC

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