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 16:02:53 +0000
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1FMSGz-0008RM-CU@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #11 from fsasaki@w3.org  2006-03-23 16:02 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> > The generated schemas in the tagset draft are 
> > *not* normative. Both the conformance sections on 
> > schema conformance [...] and on processing expecations 
> > [...] don't talk about the generated schemas. That is: 
> > everybody is free to change them, or not to use them at 
> > all.
> OK. But I still think we should generate non-normative schemas that can be used
> out of the box to allow extensions [if it's not too much work/change to do
> that]. Most users will use the schemas as they are.

The problem is: what to do with DTDs?

I have created a schema which has "entry points" for any elements and
attributes in the <documentRules> element, and the same for the <translateRule>
element (here just as an example). Is that what you are thinking of? If "yes",
I'd work with Sebastian on how to implement this in ODD.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" elementFormDefault="qualified">
        <xs:element name="documentRules">
                        <xs:choice maxOccurs="unbounded">
                                <xs:sequence minOccurs="0"
                                        <xs:any namespace="##other"/>
                                <xs:element ref="its:translateRule"/>
                        <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any"
        <xs:element name="translateRule">
                        <xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
                                <xs:any namespace="##other"/>
                        <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##any"/>

> > ...
> > Do you think we should have such an example in the spec?
> I don't think it's needed. The paragraph about extension in section 1.3 seems
> enough.

Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 16:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:09 UTC