W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2013

RE: I18N-ISSUE-207: Term data category and dfn element [.prep-ITS-20]

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 07:17:13 -0700
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <www-international@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009d01cdf32b$04620b50$0d2621f0$@com>
>> We should be consistent: put either all mappings in 
>> the specifications or in the BP document.
>
> Understand. So then rather do this normatively in the spec,
> and summarizing maybe in a section "existing HTML markup and ITS"?

Whether we do it in the specification or the BP, it would likely to be a normative change. That is, if we do in in a BP, text like "Applying the Id Value data category to xml:id (in XML) or id (in HTML) attributes in global rules is not necessary, since these attributes are the recommended way to specify an identifier." would need to be changed.

What probably matter most in the long term is compliance: Do we want an ITS processor that supports Terminology for HTML to 'understand' <dfn> by default, or hope it does follow the BP?

As a user I'd rather have processors I can count on to do the proper mapping by default.

but, in the other hand, defining all rules for HTML5 is likely to be a bit challenging:

- What about data categories like Elements Within Text? After all <b>, <u>, etc. should be mapped to withinText='yes'.
- Do we also define the translatable attributes?
- How do we address the thorny case of Preserve Space for <pre>?
- Is the content with <del> translatable or not?
- etc.

This could get ugly and time consuming, and may be easier to handle in a BP for which time constraint is more flexible.

So I don't know...

cheers,
-yves
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:17:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:17:54 GMT