Hi Yves, Christian, Please make this discussion on the list (not only the discussion result), so that others know what happens. Cheers, Felix Yves Savourel wrote: > I think #2/#3 is just matter of 'fixing' the list of the precedence, but > doesn't need specific wording in your text. > > -ys > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Lieske, Christian [mailto:christian.lieske@sap.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:43 AM > *To:* Yves Savourel > *Cc:* Felix Sasaki > *Subject:* RE: Action Item: Editors to write some clarification text > explaining inheritance stops at nodes > > Hi Yves, > > Thanks for the feedback. I am currently working on including it in an > updated proposal. I wonder if you > would like to see #2 and #3 addressed in the clarification text or in > other parts of the specification? > > Cheers, > Christian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* public-i18n-its-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Yves Savourel > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2006 2:37 PM > *To:* Lieske, Christian; public-i18n-its@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: Action Item: Editors to write some clarification text > explaining inheritance stops at nodes > > Hi Christian, all, > > Sounds fine to me. > > The only note I have is about "caveat". To me that would suggest a > warning about something you should not do rather than a clarification > about the mechanism. In other words that suggest something is "not quite > right" about it. > > The other aspect is that maybe the list of precedence should be > re-worked as our clarified interpretation means the behavior is > different depending if you talk about nodes with rules or inheritence. > And there is the #3 where we don't make the distinction between linked > external rules and external rules set via tool mechanism. > > -ys > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* public-i18n-its-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Lieske, Christian > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:37 AM > *To:* Felix Sasaki; public-i18n-its@w3.org > *Subject:* Action Item: Editors to write some clarification text > explaining inheritance stops at nodes > > Hi Felix, > > Here's my suggestion for our action item > > Editors to write some clarification text explaining inheritance > stops at nodes > > recorded in _http://www.w3.org/2006/12/13-i18nits-minutes.html#action10_ > > Let me know what you think. > > I would suggest to add the note to 2.2 (Overriding and Inheritance). On > the one hand that's where > we first extensively talk about inheritance. On the other hand, its > non-normative. > > Cheers, > Christian > === > > Caveat Related to Inheritance > > Inheritance is applied only after every other method of establishing a > value > for a data category has been exhausted. Put differently: Values > specified by rules > are given precedence over inherited values. > > Accordingly, the content of the "code" element in the example below is > marked as > "not translatable" (since the value specified in the "translateRule" for > "code" > receives precedence over the inherited value from the local rule on the > "par" element). > > <myDoc xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"> > <head> > <its:rules its:version="1.0"> > <its:translateRule selector="//code" translate="no"/> > <its:translateRule selector="//par" translate="no"/> > </its:rules> > </head> > <body> > <par its:translate="yes">This is the paragraph 2. It has some > <code>special code 2</code>.</par> > </body> > </myDoc> > > This behaviour is in line with CSS: a global rule like em { color: blue > ; } is overridden by > <em style ="color: blue;">. However, for the <em> element it is not > overridden by a local rule like > <p style ="color: blue;"> ...<em>. >Received on Friday, 22 December 2006 02:16:16 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:12:48 GMT