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: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:19:24 +0000
CC:
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FMEU0-0001CO-5H@wiggum.w3.org>

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





------- Comment #3 from fsasaki@w3.org  2006-03-23 01:19 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> > 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
> 

(In reply to comment #2)
> This issue (Bug #3000) is one of the topic for discussion this week (and
> decision at the Wed Mar-29 teleconference).
> 
> Summary:
> 
> We have decided (during the Sophia face-to-face I think) to address
> extensibility in ITS by simply letting users use their own namespaces. The
> question here is:
> 
> - Do we need to have "extension points" (place where attributes and/or element
> of non-ITS namepsace are allowed) formally specified in our schemas? (so one
> can validate ITS markup).
> 
> - And if so, where in <its:documentRules> and its children these extension
> points should be?

my impression is that people might want to have extensibility to extend
specific functionality of ITS:
- the selection mechanism, realized with its:select
- the values which are assigned e.g. via its:translate or its:dir
- the passThrough mechanism, realized with xxxAttributes
- the "same-as" mechanism (if we want it)
I am wondering if we should allow a child element for all rules element, which
separates this functionality, e.g.
<its:translateRule its:select="//p" its:translate="yes">
<its:extension target="its:select">...</its:extension>
<its:extension target="its:translate">...</its:extension>
<its:extension target="its:xxxPassThrough">...</its:extension>
</its:translateRule>

The content of the element would be undefined.
Locally, I would say we don't need to provide extensibility.
> 
> -yves
> 
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 01:19:29 UTC

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