W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: draft requirement related to 'purpose specification/mapping'

From: Masaki Itagaki <masaki_itagaki@aliquantuminc.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:14:02 -0600
To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <101.16988.1120552852@automsgid.listhub.w3.org>

This is really an interesting approach, and I'm curious about how the
discussion went in the F2F meeting. To me, this sounds like an "element
override" for the purpose of I18N. I instantly imagined if this is
applicable to other ITSs, such as term identification. Suppose that an
original document has the following:

You can define multiple computation IDs for one company in the <index
sortstr="currency restatement">Currency Restatement</index> program

Now when you wish the index element to serve as a terminology data, you
could specify it as: 
	<servesPurpose origVoc="index" its="term"/>

If I understood your requirement correctly, this should be something you
could do with it. During our discussion over term identification, we talked
about an issue of an element that serves two different purposes (like index
and term). The purpose specification may be one solution for it. Now when
you specify a different purpose ("term" in the sample above), you might want
to either carry over existing attributes (e.g. "sortstr" in the sample
above") or introduce new attributes (like "POS", "termType"). We don't need
to discuss too much detail about implementation here, but do you see some
ways to handle attributes of old/new elements in this solution?

Masaki Itagaki 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Lieske, Christian
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:54 AM
To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: draft requirement related to 'purpose specification/mapping'

Dear all,

During the F2F, I touched on a dimension which I tend to term 'purpose
specification' and sometimes 'mapping'. Since the F2F participants got
the impression that this is something to follow up on, I have
put together a draft ...

Best regards,


>From a localization point of view, many XML vocabularies include markup
which requires special attention, since the markup is associated with a
specific type of content. Examples:

a. elements which are associated with embedded/binary graphics
b. elements which are associated with specific text styles (e.g.
underline and bold)
c. elements which are associated with linking (e.g. the 'a' in HTML)
d. elements which are associated with lists
e. elements which are associated with tables
f. elements which are associated with with generated content (e.g. an
element that fires a query to a database in order to pull in the data
for a product catalogue)

Some reasons why this type of markup may require special attention:

a. the localization tool may be able to render specific text styles in a
standard way (e.g. increased font weight for bold)
b. embedded binary images may have to follow a specific workflow
c. content generation queries may have to be adapted

Since it is hardly imaginable that all content developers will be able
to work with the same elements and attributes for this specific type of
content, the ITS should include markup which allows people to specify
the purpose of specific elements. 


For the specific case of linking something to look at already exists:
HLink (cf. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-hlink-20020913/)

Quick Guideline Thoughts

The purpose specification could look like the following example:

	<servesPurpose origVoc="img" its="graphic"/>
	<servesPurpose origVoc="em" its="inline"/>
	<servesPurpose origVoc="b" its="inline"/>

Here, we specify that the original vocabulary (e.g. HTML) maps to ITS.
The 'img' in HTML e.g. maps to 'graphic' in ITS.
Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 05:15:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:05 UTC