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

RE: Term="yes|no"

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:25:02 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060831201957.101b12e0@localhost>
To: "Yves Savourel" <yves@opentag.com>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>

Yes, we definitely need the 'no' value locally.
Orthogonality, simplicity, completeness, and so on all
very strongly speak for it. Is there any other stuff in
ITS that might be similarly missing some values in some
cases? That would be a bad thing and should be fixed.

The parallel with xml:lang may not be complete. But please
note that there is not a single property in CSS, for example,
that accepts some range of values when given in an (e.g.
external) stylesheet and some others when in a style
attribute.

So I completely agree with Yves here.

Regards,    Martin.

At 20:51 06/08/30, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
>Hi Felix, 
>
>- Actually you are pointing out something I didn't touch on before because 
>it seemed too obvious: I would add the value "no" to the
>local term attribute as well. If we have "yes|no" available in global rules 
>they should be available locally as well. So one could
>do somethin like this:
>
><its:termRule selector="//kw" term="yes"/>
>...
><p>This is some <kw its:term="no">text</kw></p>
>
>
>- I'm not sure if I understand your point when some data categories do not 
>have override.
>They seem override to have to me:
>
>for ruby, while it makes *much less* sense to use override because the 
>nature of the information is not a flag but a specific text,
>technically you can do it too:
>
><its:rubyRule rubyText="Click this image to see a larger version" 
>selector="//@alt"/>
><its:rubyRule rubyText="World Wide Web Consortium" 
>selector="//image[@src='w3c.png']/@alt"/>
>
>And the same goes for localization information.
>No?
>
>In any case, I would think any "flag"-type data category should have a way 
>to override.
>
>I guess to see the issue from a different viewpoint: how do we justify that 
>term cannot have a "no" value (locally and globally)?
>Currently to cancel a termRule from in an external file in a document 
>instance you have to comment it out, which is not a good
>option since such external file may be used by different document where the 
>same rule is needed.
>If I recall correctly the only reason we removed term="yes|no" and made 
>limited local term to "yes" was because we thought the cases
>for "no" simply did not exist. Which is clearly not the case.
>
>Cheers,
>-yves
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
>Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:52 AM
>To: Yves Savourel
>Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Term="yes|no"
>
>Hi Yves,
>
>Sorry for being late in this discussion. I have some concerns in this
>change:
>
>- It disconnects the global usage of the terminology data category with the 
>local one. In the latter, we have only term="yes".
>- It introduces a new functionality for global rules of overriding a "this 
>is a term" rule, which again is not available locally.
>- I think the comparison to xml:lang regarding overrides, which Martin 
>introduced, is not appropriate, since xml:lang is only used
>locally.
>- You wrote "One should be able to override a previous rule that says a 
>given element is a term.", but I'm not sure if this is
>absolutely necessary. Translatability, directionality and elements within 
>text use overrides, but the other data categories don't.
>
>I'm also concerned that this change, esp. the disconnection between global 
>and local, is rather substantive and not appropriate
>during last call.
>
>Again, sorry for being late and my concerns.
>
>Felix
>
>Yves Savourel wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I have an action item to list the changes needed in the WD to add term="yes|no"
>> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-i18nits-minutes.html#action01
>> 
>> Here they are:
>> 
>> A) Add term="yes" in <its:termRule> in the examples 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 27.
>> 
>> 
>> B) In section 6.4.2: "is realized with a termRule element with a 
>mandatory selector attribute."
>> 
>> Would become:
>> 
>> "is realized with a termRule element with a mandatory selector attribute 
>and a mandatory term attribute with a value 'yes' or
>'no'."
>> 
>> (or whatever more consistent formulation matches the one Christian has 
>> come up with during the last edit of the data cat
>> definitions)
>> 
>> 
>> C) In section 6.4.3: The addition of term="yes|no" in the termRule's 
>attributes list ODD definition.
>> 
>> 
>> I think that is all.
>> -yves
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
Received on Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:33:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:08 UTC