[Comment on ITS WD] ITS markup must be integrated

Comment from the i18n review of:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/

Comment 45
At http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/0606-its/
Editorial/substantive: E
Owner: RI

Location in reviewed document:
5.6

Comment: 
"Some markup schemes provide markup which can be used to express ITS data categories. ITS data categories can be associated with such existing markup, using the global selection mechanism described in Section 5.3.1: Global, Rule-based Selection. In this way, there is no need to integrate ITS markup into documents."


The last sentence is completely incorrect as it stands. It should say that there is not need to integrate *local* ITS markup into those documents. The markup to support ITS global rules is very much needed!


FS: Please have a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#selection-precedence , list point no. 3: [Global selections in an external file (using a rules element), linked via the XLink href attribute or a different mechanism] That is: you *can* use different mechanisms than an <its:rules> element with an XLink href attribute, e.g. an external rules file. It depends on your implementation how the rules are activated, e.g. via a command line option. In other words: "In this way, there is no need to integrate ITS markup into documents." My current implementation in XSLT allows for such an (command line) option, and I'm sure it is no problem to have it for Yves' and Sebastian's implementation or others as well. However, it does not make sense to standardize this option, since it is implementation dependend.


I18n: Wherever the global rules are they are integrated 'into documents', so we assume that what you meant to say was perhaps "If global rules are defined in an external rules file, there is no need to integrate ITS markup into the document."


If, however, you are referring specifically to rules activated via command line options, as mentioned above, and given that you say that it doesn't make sense to standardize this option, then I'm wondering why you would mention it in this way. At best a note with a caution would be appropriate. Please provide clarification.

Received on Tuesday, 11 July 2006 19:38:58 UTC