- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:06:50 +0900
- To: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
- CC: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Yves Savourel さんは書きました: > Hi all, > > >> I've cretated a Wiki page >> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS_Simplified_XPath >> linked from >> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/ITS_Processing >> Which contains a proposal for a simplified EBNF. Asgeir or others: >> Could you see if it fits your needs, and edit the page accordingly? >> If you have problems with the Wiki account please tell me. >> > > Would this simplified notation be still in line with the requirement that 'pointer' attributes must be relative? > You are right, all what is in the production FullPath ::= RPath | Root | IDPath does not fit with that requirement. So a selector attribute would be restricted to FullPath, and a pointer attribute to SubPath. Or were you concerned about a different part of the ABNF? Felix > See second bullet in section 5.2.1 of the ITS spec: <http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#selection-global> > > "Attributes that point to existing information in the document, i.e. attributes whose name ends in ...Pointer, MUST use a > RelativeLocationPath as described in XPath 1.0 or its successor. The XPath expression is evaluated relative to the nodes selected by > the selector attribute. The following attributes point to existing information: locNotePointer, locNoteRefPointer, termInfoPointer, > termInfoRefPointer, rubyPointer, rtPointer, rpPointer, rbcPointer, rtcPointer, rbspanPointer, langPointer." > > At a first glance it seems it does not (but I may read the EBNF incorrectly). If it is the case, such notation may be OK with the > 'selector' attributes, but may not be always enough for the 'pointer' attributes. > > Cheers, > -yves > > >
Received on Sunday, 15 June 2008 12:24:29 UTC