W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > February 2013

Re: ACTION-447: Make a batch transformation of the test suite to xliff

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:09:19 +0100
Message-ID: <512A817F.8030908@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves, all,

Am 24.02.13 16:23, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> I Felix,
>
>> 1) local markup author creates <span its-within-text="no"><span> ...</span></span>,
>> assuming that the inheritance from the outer span will have its-within-text="no"
>> also for the inner span
>> 2) the "local markup author does not know whether an ITS tool implementating
>> "Translate" will apply the defaults or not
>> 3) we won't have interop between tools.
>>
>> We could avoid that with a "MUST" statement: a tool implementing ITS for a given
>> data category MUST take the defaults into account. But that would mean having test
>> cases with default / not default rules. Actually I think this would be good to
>> assure more interop. But it would take time. Are we willing to take that time?
> You are right, even if it's just in a BP Note, at least the tool stating they follow the BP will have to abide by this.
>
> I agree that having test cases with default would be great.
> I think ENLASO can provide one or two example files that exercise most of the default behavior, but we would only generate an output that reflect all and only the data categories we support. That is: no file showing output for a single data category and no file showing an output for Ruby.
> I think that still would be useful for implementers, even if it could not be always used like the test suite files are.
>
>
>> Then, another question: do we expect all HTML implementing tools to implement
>> the defaults? Or only the "global rules" implementers. That is, if I say
>> "I implement HTML support locally": can local rules authors expect a "default"
>> support, even if the tool does not implement general global rules?
> Good question.
> I would expect yes otherwise it's still almost impossible for author to know how to markup their documents.
>
> The key is probably that the rules are just a way to define the default behavior, not necessarily to implement it.

How about when saying this: the default rules are like default styling 
in browsers? That is, without CSS, a "p" has a different styling than 
"h1" etc.

This would also fit for precedence: for a given node,
1) if there is local markup apply that else
2) if there is a global rule match apply that
3) if there is an inherited value apply that
4) if there is a default (with additional info*) apply that
The above 1-4 is what we actually have , after resolving issue-70 with 
Frederiks proposal at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013Feb/0232.html
we then just could say: "(with additional info*)" for HTML means: a 
table with one column the HTML markup, and the other column the data 
category values assumed.

An implementation - no matter if global or local - then would be 
required as a MUST to implement that table.

This might be a normative change - but it might be quite important to 
bring us in sync with tools behavior and HTML(5)
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21085
And I'd rather spend the time to get this right than being disconnected 
to tools behavior and other technologies.

Thoughts?

Best,

Felix
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 21:09:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:08 UTC