- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:46:04 +0900
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4430C4AC.1050305@w3.org>
Hi Yves, Christian, all, Yves Savourel wrote: > Hi Felix, Christian, all > > Here are some comments on part of the Conformance section > (http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance) > > > ===1: First paragraph of section 4.1. > "They don't concern" should be "They do not concern". Done. > > > ===2: Clause 1-1: > "(e.g. the head element in HTML)." Maybe XHTML instead of HTML? Done. > > > ===3: Clause 1-2: > "All data category attributes must be declared at all elements which are part of the existing or new schema." > > A) The link of "data category attributes" seems to be broken (in all occurences) > > B) I'm not sure what "data category attributes" are. It sounds like something such as its:locInfoPointer would be such thing, but > that is an attribute not used locally. I understand this means all ITS attributes one can use locally. Maybe there is a way to > articulate this better? I will change that to "all local attributes", and have a SHOULD here. (reply to D) ). > > C) It seems too much to force *all* data categories to be declared. I was trying to keep it simple: "If you want to use ITS markup declarations, use them all". If people want to use only a subset of the markup declarations, they will have to change the ITS schemas we define by hand. > > D) I would disagree with forcing to put ITS attributes in *all* elements. I agree with your disagreement. This for several reasons: > > D.1) It's OK most of the time for the article-type XML documents (DITA, DocBook, XHTML, etc.) but it makes less sense in > many of the resource/data-oriented XML documents, where large sets of elements may have nothing to do ever with text data. > > D.2) It makes no sense for some of the data category when the elements are empty... For example allowing almost any ITS in > XHTML <br/> is meaningless: <br its:term='yes'/> means nothing, why forcing that to be valid? > > D.3) Some data categories may be already defined in the host format (like translate in DITA, or bidi and ruby in XHTML). It > would probably be not a good idea to encourage using ITS markup over the native one. > > So it may be *convenient* (in some cases) to declare them on all elements, but one should not have to to be conform. > > > E) I would replace "part of the existing or new schema." by "part of the schema.". 'existing or new' does not add anything to this > clause, and the paragraph "Who uses this product" covers this 'existing or new' aspect for all clauses. done. > > > ===4: Clause 1-3: > "The ruby element must be declared as an inline element (the definition of inline depends on the existing or new schema.)" > > A) This look a bit strange. Its says basically: "The ruby element must be declared as a specific type of element, and you will know > what that specific type of element is depending on your schema." If we don't say what an inline element is exactly we might as well > not say anything. > Maybe something like: "The ruby element must be declared in elements that have text content." or something better? "Inline" is motivated by the definition of ruby markup in http://www.w3.org/TR/ruby . Maybe I should refer to that? > > > ===5: Clause 1-4: > "The span element may be declared as an inline element (the definition of inline depends on the existing or new schema.)." > > A) Same as for clause 1-3. > > > ===6: Clause 1-5: > "The declarations of general datatypes should be taken into account." > > A) The link to "declarations of general datatypes" is broken. So I have no idea what it means exactly :) this will change with the new schema design, so I'll delete the conformance clause. > > > ===7: Paragraph 2 after the clauses: > > "Since the definitions in are ...": "in" what? This was again a broken link. I changed it to "Since the ITS markup declarations ..." > > "It depends on the design of the existing or new schema (e.g. whether it already has a customization layer which uses parameter > entities) what is appropriate." sounds strange to me. > > Maybe, instead: > > "The appropriate steps to integrate ITS into a schema depend on the design of this schema (e.g. whether it already has a > customization layer which uses parameter entities)." Done. > > And for the part: "The ITS schemas in the format of XML DTD, XML Schema and RELAX NG in Appendix A: Schemas for ITS are only > informative examples, it is not not feasible to integrate them into every existing or new schema." > > I would drop ", it is not not feasible to integrate them into every existing or new schema". Beacuase it does not really add any > usefull information. Done. > > ...and there is the discussion about whether the schema are normative or not obvioulsy... yes. Yves, Christian, all, what do you think, given the thread between Sebastian and me? > > > ===8: Last paragraph of section 4.1: > > I would drop: "ITS markup declarations are a set of elements and attributes, that have been designed using state of the art > knowledge about internationalization and localization needs.". It sounds very pretencious :) yes :) . Done > > I would drop: "Since the goal of the ITS Working Group is to deliver one set of declarations, the conformance levels defined in this > section do not allow an existing or new schema to use only parts of the ITS markup declarations. However, this concerns only the ITS > markup declarations in a schema." Since I don't agree that all data categories must be permited to have a conformant ITS markup. Just to make clear: I'm only talking about "ITS markup *declarations*", not the markup in instances or processing expectations. Background for my proposal to enforce all declarations: We are chartered to produce *one* tag set. I'm not sure if allowing for fractioned ITS sub schemas would be a response to that requirement. > > I would probably drop: "As for the interpretation of ITS markup and the respective data categories, the product and conformance > criteria defined in Section 4.2: Conformance Type 2: Processing Expectations for ITS Markup are relevant." Because the next section > is just after. I guess that could saty for a transition (but it's a specification not a dissertation, do we have to have > transitions? :) Dropped. > > > That's all for now. > -yves > >
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 06:46:14 UTC