RE: ITS Module namespace

Hi David, all,

> ...The decision is made by the XLIFF TC, so I'd expect that 
> we'd be trying to reach the naming consensus on 
> the the xliff list.

Indeed.


> I agree that communications should be simple and consistent. So we may even 
> include a Warning in the XLIFF 2.1 module saying that throughout the 
> specification, in the examples, test files etc the its: namespace prefix 
> indicates urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1 rather than the w3c "http" namespace. 

The fact that you suggest a warning tells me that we shouldn't use "its" for the ITS module.

In our industry "its" is the prefix of convention for the ITS namespace.
"Convention over configuration" is a good paradigm and we should stick with it.


> I am not sure about the argument of confusion of the average 
> end user. I do not know who is the average end user. Who are end users of 
> XML standards?

>From the XLIFF files I've seen in that past decade, I'm pretty sure the XML knowledge of the average XLIFF users is very low (if not extremely low), and the risk for them to see for example "its:whatever" in a DocBook file and "its:whatever" in an XLIFF 2.1 and assume both are the same is very high.


> And should we assume that they are not going to check a 
> namespace declaration?

I think you can assume most of them don't even know what a namespace declaration is.


> xits sounds and looks as a custom-made private thing, if anything 
> should be prefixed it should indicate that it is an OASIS namespace 
> rather than x.. 

None of the other modules (mtc, gls, fs, mta, res, etc.) use any pattern related to OASIS, I don't see why the ITS module should.

> I know that x here is meant to mean xliff but the primary connotations with 
> x are rather extensible, xml, or private if anything.. so I do not see 
> this adding to clarity in the naming. 
> "oits" would be probably too cryptic and "oasisits" too long. So for 
> me the ideal (clear and consistent) solution seems to be using "its" 
> both for fragid prefix and example namespace prefix for 
> urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1

If xits doesn't work, maybe itsxlf, or xlfits or itsm (m=module) works better.
But in my opinion "its" is already taken.


Cheers,
-yves



From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie] 
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 5:42 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: public-i18n-its-ig
Subject: Re: ITS Module namespace

Thanks, Yves,

while it is OK to have a discussion of pros and cons here. The decision is made by the XLIFF TC, so I'd expect that we'd be trying to reach the naming consensus on the the xliff list.

I am not sure about the argument of confusion of the average end user. I do not know who is the average end user. Who are end users of XML standards? And should we assume that they are not going to check a namespace declaration? 

We had a similar discussion before at XLIFF TC, whether Ryan should be allowed to use the same element name as core in the resource module, and we said the standard is not for recreational XML users and it should be clear enough that the resource module <source> is a different <source> than the core <source>.

I agree that communications should be simple and consistent. So we may even include a Warning in the XLIFF 2.1 module saying that throughout the specification, in the examples, test files etc the its: namespace prefix indicates urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1 rather than the w3c "http" namespace. 
We could use something like w3cits, if we needed to reference the original w3c namespace.

xits sounds and looks as a custom-made private thing, if anything should be prefixed it should indicate that it is an OASIS namespace rather than x.. I know that x here is meant to mean xliff but the primary connotations with x are rather extensible, xml, or private if anything.. so I do not see this adding to clarity in the naming. 
"oits" would be probably too cryptic and "oasisits" too long. So for me the ideal (clear and consistent) solution seems to be using "its" both for fragid prefix and example namespace prefix for urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1  

The ITS module will be THE way how to work with ITS in XLIFF and the w3c namespace will not need to be mentioned at all or relatively infrequently. 
The ITS extensions will become pretty much illegal, no one registered them for fragid and they will only be legal for purposes not covered by the module, so pretty much none..

Also, as hinted above, wrt the prefix, there are 2 different prefixes from XLIFF point of view, one is the fragid prefix that is not arbitrary and the other is the namespace prefix that is. Again I think that the XLIFF module prefix should be "its" and if a prefix for ITS as extension should be registered for some purposes not covered by the module at a later stage, the prefix should be w3cits, or even better category specific, eg. "taits" if the purpose to be covered worked with text analytics etc.

Cheers and talk to you later today
dF


Dr. David Filip
=======================
OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer 
LRC | CNGL | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
I think Felix had a point here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its-ig/2014Oct/0052.html Using “its” may be confusing to the end-users: the XLIFF module defines both more and less than the ITS namespace, so I can see that using “its” can confuse an average end-user.
Obviously prefixes are arbitrary, but consistency and conventions help a lot communication.
 
Personally I don’t care much what the ITS module’s URI and the default prefix are, as long as they are consistent and that we define them once for all very soon.
 
Cheers,
-yves
 
From: David Filip [mailto:davidf@davidf.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 6:54 PM
To: Phil Ritchie
Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: ITS Module namespace
 
I don't see a value in calling the namespace anything else than its. The OASIS namespace is clearly a different namespace than the w3c one and prefixes are anyway arbitrary.. 
dF is AFK, so please bear with the typos and call me at +353860222158 if my answer seems insufficient..
+1 for "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits"


-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: 07 November 2014 13:10
To: 'public-i18n-its-ig'
Subject: ITS Module namespace

Hi all,

Currently the 2.1 draft uses "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:its:2.1" for the ITS module URI and "its" for the recommended prefix. We discussed a different prefix to avoid confusion with the traditional "its" prefix.

Should we then use "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:xits:2.1" and "xits" in the specification?

Deciding soon will help avoid having to fix unit tests and examples later.

Thanks,
-yves
________________________________________
VistaTEC Ltd. Registered in Ireland 268483. 
Registered Office, VistaTEC House, 700, South Circular Road, Kilmainham. Dublin 8. Ireland. 
The information contained in this message, including any accompanying documents, is confidential and is intended only for the addressee(s). The unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately.
________________________________________

Received on Monday, 10 November 2014 15:31:44 UTC