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

issue-121 (Re: Locale Filter - exclusion)

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:11:45 +0100
Message-ID: <512FABF1.6030101@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Hi Yves,

sounds good to me. It just seems that this should influence conformance 
testing (not the schema, it seems), e.g. have a test with "!" and 
provide a different output, no? I filled an issue to keep track of this, 
let's see what others say.

Best,

Felix

Am 28.02.13 19:52, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> Hi Felix,
>
> I see that I didn't disagree with the change and didn't come up with examples for exclude in those emails.
> My bad: I don't understand how I missed that.
>
> Now it seems most use cases I can think of would need an exclusion option.
>
> <p its-locale-filter-list="*-CA">Legal notice for Canada</p>
> <p its-locale-filter-list="???">Legal notice for all other countries</p>
>
> Sure, one can 'fix' the problem by listing all the other locales for the second paragraph.
> But in practice that would be difficult and un-reliable to do.
>
> If we want to address this (do we?), one simple solution I can think of is to allow, for example, a '!' at the front of the value and say that it inverts/negates the selection. The value would not be an Extended Range anymore, but something more still very close to that.
> The implementation changes would probably be relatively simple (no additional attributes, just a extra flag).
>
> thoughts?
> -yves
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:21 AM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Locale Filter - exclusion
>
> HI Yves, all,
>
>
> Am 28.02.13 15:29, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm trying to use Locale Filter in an example: I wanted to exclude all French locales.
> we had discussed that this use case is not needed - see
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Aug/0018.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Apr/0148.html
>
> but obviously the decision was not clear enough. Should we revise it?
> Looking at
> http://htmlpreview.github.com/?https://raw.github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/master/its2.0/testSuiteDashboard.html
> this would influence 8 implementers it seems. But if this is important, that's of course no argument.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>> I'm drawing a complete blank on how to do this...
>>
>> We used to have exclude/include keywords but now we just have the locale values and (hopefully I'm missing something) but I don't see anything to invert a locale in the extended filtering mechanism.
>>
>> Any clue?
>> Thanks,
>> -yves
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 19:12:13 UTC

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