W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: Action Item on BP9 from Teleconference 8 August 2007

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:52:18 +0900
Message-ID: <46C60A82.4020202@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org

Hi Yves, all,

Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Some comments:
>
>
>   
>> Best Practice 9: Provide xml:id specify unique identifiers
>> New>Allow localizable elements to be annotated with unique identifiers
>>     
>
> I think the current title reads "Provide a way to specify unique identifiers" which seems in line with the other titles.
>
>
>   
>> Provide a way to assign a unique identifier to localizable elements.
>> New>Include xml:id in your DTD or schema to allow localizable elements 
>> New>to be annotated with unique identifiers.
>>     
>
> Yes, that is better I think.
>
> However we have to make sure of I think is xml:id: Is it the recommended way to declare IDs in XML?

yes, it is.

>  I'm asking because it's
> different than from xml:lang: In xml:lang there are no DTD way to attach a 'language code' semantic to an attribute, but for ID the
> important thing is the type. Actually you often do not need to know the name of the ID to use it, even if it's not xml:id.
>
> I'm not against strongly recommending xml:id, I just would like to be sure it's the "official" way to go, like xml:lang is for
> languages.
>
>
>
>   
>> Make sure the attribute xml:id, or a different attribute of type 
>> ID, is available, at least, the "paragraph" level, for the 
>> elements that contain translatable text.
>>
>> NEW>Make sure an attribute which represents a unique identifier is 
>> NEW>available at least for all elements that may contain translatable text.
>>     
>
> I see that we are back to having IDs on <emph> :)
> Is it really a 'make sure'? I can see the usage in some cases, but one can do perfectly good localization without having ID down at
> that level no?
>
>
>   
>> NEW>Note: It is highly recommended to name the ID attributes "xml:id", 
>> NEW>and follow the rules put forth in [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id].
>> This increases the interoperability of these identifiers on the Web, 
>> and helps to make XML sub-resource linking robust.
>>     
>
> What is "XML sub-resource"? I'm guessing, but it sound maybe to muc. I would cut after "Web". Actually I would cut after
> "identifiers": XML is used in plently of areas outside the Web.
>
>
>   
>> NEW>Note: Internal or external declarations in DTDs or XSDs may assist 
>> NEW>in declaring and checking the unique identifiers.
>> NEW>Note: Attention should be paid to the lexical forms and attribute 
>> NEW>value normalizations described in [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id].
>>     
>
> Isn't this 'lexical form' mention go against your remark that other form of IDs could be used and be OK. 

I think that Christian is saying "other attributes of type ID". That is: 
name is not xml:id, but type is still ID.

> A good example is Windows
> GUID: they could start with a digit but are used as unique ID.
>   

they are not of type ID. I would disagree with mentioning such examples 
as other than "bad practices".

cheers,

Felix
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 20:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:43:09 UTC