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 14:08:45 +0000
CC:
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FMQUX-0003v6-7w@wiggum.w3.org>

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





------- Comment #9 from fsasaki@w3.org  2006-03-23 14:08 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> My understanding is the same as Christian. 

o.k., so let's drop my proposal on "functionality specific" extensions.

> Except that I would allow to add
> stuff to <documentRules> as well.

As Sebastian said, we can't prevent it anyway :)

> 
> But don't we still have to explicitely allow this in the schema if we want to
> be able to validate ITS elements? (at least with XML Schema (using ##any,
> ##other, etc.), I don't know about RELAX NG)

The generated schemas in the tagset draft are *not* normative. Both the
conformance sections on schema conformance
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema
and on processing expecations 
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-processing-expectations
don't talk about the generated schemas. That is: everybody is free to change
them, or not to use them at all.

> 
> For an example of extensions, here is one based on the input the Fujixerox
> people gave you Felix:
> 
> <its:documentRules xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
>  xmlns:ext="myITSExtension">
>  <its:translateRule its:translate="yes" its:selector="//@p[class='ml']" 
>   ext:targetLanguages="en fr de" />
>  <ext:MaxLengthRule ext:MaxLength="16"
>   ext:Selector="//ledString" />
> </its:documentRules>
> 
Do you think we should have such an example in the spec?
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 14:08:53 UTC

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