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

Re: [ACTION-262] Two issues

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:08:39 +0100
Message-ID: <50ABFF67.3080500@w3.org>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Arle, Pedro, all,

I tried to split the two topics, see item 20 at
http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#changelog-since-20121023

Best,

Felix



Am 20.11.12 13:41, schrieb Pedro L. Díez Orzas:
>
> Dear Arle,
>
> It is fine to me. I do not know if Karl and Mauricio agree.
>
> All the best,
>
> Pedro
>
> *De:*Arle Lommel [mailto:arle.lommel@dfki.de]
> *Enviado el:* martes, 20 de noviembre de 2012 10:31
> *Para:* Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List
> *Asunto:* [ACTION-262] Two issues
>
> Hi all,
>
> In working with Pedro's text, I realized that it actually addresses 
> two related but distinct issues:
>
> 1. That you shouldn't use Allowed Characters to try to exclude HTML 
> mark-up and that this data category should not be "abused" to exclude 
> HTML content.
>
> 2. That we don't have any way to apply data categories within plain 
> text content and that there may be ways to work around this issue.
>
> #1 clearly belongs in Allowed Characters. I've gone ahead and added 
> that bit (essentially an edited version of Pedro's first paragraph).
>
> #2 is a general issue that is /not/ specific to this category and, I 
> think, should be placed elsewhere. This is really implementation 
> guidance that could be quite important in setting the scope of what 
> ITS 2.0 can and cannot do:
>
>     For content fields which allow only plain text content, the
>     current ITS 2.0 data categories can by applied only globally, and
>     not with local attributes. This issue should be addressed in
>     another way external to the ITS 2.0 standard. While prescribing
>     methods to address this issue is beyond the scope of this
>     specification, one possible way would be to allow markup in fields
>     where possible and, where allowing HTML is not possible, to use an
>     extra field that allows HTML input and then create a plain text
>     version from that input for use where needed.
>
> I see why they were connected in what Pedro did, but I believe they 
> need to be separated.
>
> Any suggestion where the second bit should go?
>
> -Arle
>
> On 2012 Nov 6, at 18:34 , Pedro L. Díez Orzas 
> <pedro.diez@linguaserve.com <mailto:pedro.diez@linguaserve.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I send you the text. If you agree, you can close the action 262.
>
> «Allowed characters is not intended to disallow HTML markup. The 
> purpose is to restrict the content to various characters only, like 
> when the content is used for URL or filename generation. In most of 
> the Web-Content-Management-Systems content is divided into several 
> fields. Some fields are restricted to plain text, while in other 
> fields HTML fragments are allowed.
>
> For fields which only allow plain text, the current ITS 2.0 data 
> categories can only applied globally and not with local attributes. 
> This issue should be addressed in another way, apart from the ITS 2.0 
> standard. One way would be to allow HTML in these fields if possible, 
> or using an extra field which allows HTML input and save the plain 
> text of this extra field in the plain text field.»
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Pedro
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 22:09:04 UTC

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