- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:34:37 +0900
- To: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
- CC: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Hi Yves, Ingo, all, Yves Savourel さんは書きました: > Hi Ingo, > > Thanks for following up on your input of last teleconference, > > > >> It may be beneficial to support the ITS data category >> "Elements Within Text" at the local level. >> Supporting this at the local level would mean that a simple >> parser (which does not have to deal with XPath statements) >> could be written. >> Needing a complex parsing procedure may put some people off >> using ITS. >> Segmentation information is important to many editing tools, >> and having this at the local level is of benefit to these >> tools (if and when they support ITS). >> > > Obviously, one of the reasons why the current version of ITS does not have support for local Elements Within Text rule is because we > found only very rare cases where an element would have to change its 'within text' property inside a document, as this would means > the element has suddenly different semantics. And the examples you gave indicate no differences on that aspect. > > The main issue I see with your proposal is that the rational for adding a local Within Text rule seem solely based on making things > easier for the ITS processor. > > So I've tried to imagine how this would help: > > Having a processor that support Winthin Text only at the local level would means it can only process documents where every single > element that is either 'within text' or 'nested' would have to be marked up as such. Every bold, italic, every span-like elements... > This seemed a bit un-realistic to me. > > Then I thought about default attributes in DTDs. > I guess one could argue that a DTD could define the default its:withinText attributes for each element where it is required and this > would result on a document where each element has that information at the attribute level, and this not being related to any real > local change. It would be simply a different way to pass the 'global rules' to the document. And this would allow an ITS processor > supporting only local rules to handle ElementWithin Text. > > I am not sure this is a scenario I would recommand to anyone: Default attributes have their own set of issues. But it is a possible > case. > > Now, I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this. This is an interesting case. > Sounds like dangerous ground to me, since you don't have that information available without a DTD. I think what you really want is to have less expensive global ITS processing, that is not requiring the full power of XPath, but having e.g. just a list of elements and / or attributes. Maybe this is the general topic of this thread and the other one on reduction of XPath to some axis. Felix > By the way, It reminded me that an implementation of an ITS processor had to handle such case for other data categories like > Translate: That default attributes should be overriden by global rules, while non-default attribute should override the global > rules. Thanks for the reminder. > > Cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 22:10:07 UTC