Re: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)

Hi Yves, Daniel, all,

Am 07.07.13 22:12, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> Hi all,
>
>> Just to clarify one point: if there is a resolution
>> to stick to the current state of the spec, I will
>> accept it 100% and I won't raise an objection.
>> ...
> A few notes:
>
> a) I obviously can't talk for other implementations, but I've looked at our source code for parsing the content of <script> and, from that viewpoint, implementing either solutions is very similar for us and would make no significant difference code-wise.

For ITS 2.0, sure. But from your view on ITS 1.0 existing tools: 
wouldn't it break backwards compatibility if we put "rules" into CDATA? 
I am talking about tools that choose to process XHTML content the XML 
way. From Linguaserves work I had the impression that this is a common 
use case in their workflow, and the same from Jirka's argumentation. But 
I don't know how wide spread it is in localization tool chains.

>
> b) If we go for the CDATA option for <its:rules>, we probably want to do the same for the standoff markup notation as well (e.g. http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-provenance-html5-local-2) ... So likely more changes, especially for tools creating or updating data categories with standoff notations.

All good points.

>
> c) If the CDATA option is the proper technical thing to do, we should probably go for that even if it gives us quite a bit of extra work.

You are right, if people think that is the proper thing to do. Due to 
holiday season we may not end up with a resolution this week. But we 
should continue the discussion asap to not hold up implementer(s).

Best,

Felix

>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:16 PM
> To: Phil Ritchie; Felix Sasaki
> Cc: Jirka Kosek; Pablo Nieto Caride; Yves Savourel; Mārcis Pinnis; Thomas Ruedesheim; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)
>
> On 07/07/13 19:43, Phil Ritchie wrote:
>
>> I will be on the call and would support the proposal to *not*
>> introduce CDATA.
> Just to clarify one point: if there is a resolution to stick to the current state of the spec, I will accept it 100% and I won't raise an objection. But I want everyone to fully understand the impact of such a decision: every single library, every single app, every single editor, every single filter will have to implement HTML-flavor-based switches for parsing, manipulation and serialization of inline ITS rules in HTML, and the DOM of ITS rules inside an html5 document will depend on the serialization of the document. Sorry, but urgghhh, to say exactly what I think of it...
>
> </Daniel>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 20:37:02 UTC