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

[Bug 3000] Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:01:08 +0000
CC:
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FJZMy-0005nB-IS@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000





------- Comment #1 from ysavourel@translate.com  2006-03-15 17:01 -------

> We don't need to do any more work to make 
> it easy; and we can't stop it. The only issue 
> is whether we encourage it.
> Is there a concrete example?
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz


Wouldn't we have to explicitely allow non-ITS attributes and/or elements in the
schemas to allow this?

As for an example: one may be people adding constraints information or content
type information, or other things not included in ITS. For instance:

<its:documentRules xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
 xmlns:ext="myITSExtension">
 <its:translateRule its:translate="yes" its:selector="//*/@alt" />
 <ext:MaxLengthRule ext:MaxLength="16"
  ext:Selector="//ledString" />
 <ext:MachineTransRule ext:AllowUse="never"
  ext:Selector="//term | //quote" />
</its:documentRules>

On external documentRules it's not so important because you can easily do the
reverse (include ITS info in your own format). But it's potentially important
for documentRules inside document instances as some host formats would allow
ITS formally, and therefore allow extensions to be "validly piggy-backed"
through ITS. [Not sure if it's always a good thing though]

Maybe we could limit where the extensions would be allowed, like: no
attributes, but allow elements (?), or even restrict even further by offering
an extension element that allows attributes, and nothing else. (?) ...just
thinking...

-yves
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2006 17:01:19 UTC

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