- From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:05:30 -0600
- To: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- Cc: <ian@hixie.ch>, <hsivonen@iki.fi>, <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Julian, all, > Also, the relation itself should be generic enough to be used with > different formats, ITS being just one of them; thus I'd call it > something like "translationrules". After some discussion at out last teleconference, the question came to why this relation should be generic? As far as we know there are no i18n rules equivalent to ITS. And, probably more importantly, assuming it could be a different format than ITS would means the user agent, to know if it should process it or not, would have to somehow auto-detect it, and therefore fetch it. This sounds like a bad idea. It seems that the relation should unequivocally means the rules are ITS, no? As far as the value itself "i18nrules" would be fine, "itsrules" (assuming we go the way of making the relation ITS-specific) would be a bit better. Best regards, -yves
Received on Thursday, 30 April 2009 22:06:11 UTC