W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [ACTION-256]: Compile and circulate itsTool examples togehter with proposal text

From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 10:41:14 +0000
Message-ID: <509A3ACA.7010502@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves,
Yes, you are right, the xml:id solution in option (b) would only be 
understood by its processors and would mean the script id would change 
is toolInfo elements were added/removed form a script - possibly 
confusing other mechanisms.

Option (a) would be a bit more verbose, but cleaner to manage as tool 
info is added/removed. Though it would be a bit more verbose, this is 
only for times when the toolinfo need to be embedded in HTML, which I 
guess may be less preferred to external files or other web resources 
long term anyway.

So lets agree on option a.

I'll update the its:tool text and send that out shortly.

cheers,
Dave



On 06/11/2012 19:57, Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi Dave, all,
>
>> You are right that as we have multiple ID (per toolInfo element)
>> we want to refer to in the <script> we can't use the same solution
>> as we discussed in the tc on monday.
>>
>> Two option occur to me:
>> a) enforce that each toolInfo element is  in a different script,
>> with the script id reflecting the toolInfo element id
>> b) [a hack] , allow multiple toolInfo elements in a single processInfo
>> element in a script and make the script xml:id be the line separated
>> concatenation of all the toolInfo elements in the script, i.e.
> Solution a) is probably the best. Solution b) would prevent a normal use of the ID mechanism I'm guessing.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 10:41:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:03 UTC