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

Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD, i18n-ISSUE-213: its-term in example 44

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:26:57 +0100
Message-ID: <50F7B5D1.9060605@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, www International <www-international@w3.org>
Hi Richard, all,

as Mārcis wrote in his reply and as we discussed during yesterday's i18n 
call, HTML "dfn" has quite some ambiguity. For ITS implementations, the 
main point is this: the "its-term" attribute has the same semantics like 
its counterpart for XML content (its:term); an ITS processor will 
recognize "its-term" in HTML5, but won't know anything about "dfn" or 
"dt". And we don't want to change that behaviour with regards to "dfn" 
or "dt", due to reasons you summarized at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0095.html

Would it resolve your comment if we handle it together with
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0095.html
"i18n-ISSUE-212: HTML5 in the ITS spec"
and to add explanatory text like the above to the example?

I'd encourage others to look into the i18n-ISSUE-212 issue too - it's 
quite important for getting the "ITS + HTML message" across.

Best,

Felix

Am 16.01.13 20:43, schrieb Richard Ishida:
> Example 44: The Terminology data category expressed locally in HTML
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-its20-20121206/#terminology-implementation
>
> This example seems to be recommending use of its-term in HTML5, 
> whereas there are other more standard ways of idnentifying terms in 
> HTML5, eg. using dfn. I don't think this is a useful example (unless 
> it gets heavily qualified by additional text - but even then, i'm 
> doubtful.)
>
> [comment not discussed by i18n WG]
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 08:27:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 January 2013 08:27:20 GMT