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

Inheritance in DITA / XLIFF

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 08:55:26 +0900
Message-ID: <442DC16E.5070004@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Hi Yves,

You mentioned at the editor's call the difference of inheritance in DITA
 / XLIFF versus ITS.

I had a short look at

and my impression is that it is the role of defaults from the general
DITA DTD or a a specialized one is which you were mentioning.

Do you have the impression that ITS does s.t. different than DITA /
XLIFF, or is it just s.t. "additional"? If the later is the case, we
don't need to restructure our inheritance / default descriptions, but
just add s.t. for translatability, e.g.


      Implicit local selection in instance documents (data category
attributes on a specific element)

      Local selections in instance documents (using a documentRules element)

      Global selections in an external file (using a documentRules element)

      Selections via defaults for data categories, see Section 6.1:
Position and Default Selections of Data Categories

and for translatability: if a specification of defaults is present (we
would have to define a format for that), it has precedence other 4.

If you agree, this would be a bug "extending precedence to be able to
cater defaults". Otherwise, it would be "rethinking ITS" ...


Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 23:55:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:07 UTC