W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Comments on Conformance section (part 1)

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 05:53:52 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004401c65715$4800f5b0$0300a8c0@Breizh>

Hi Felix, all,

>> 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.

It seems this contradicts #3 below.

>> "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?

Mmm... Maybe, but is Ok to use that for <its:span> too? (it has nothing to do with ruby). Maybe we should then define what we call
inline here or use "text-level"(?)

>> 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'm not sure if I understand. Are you saying that to be conformant an application needs to use a schema where all ITS constructs are
declared, but does not have to support or allows for all ITS markup inside the document instances?

What is the point of having all ITS declaration in the schema if you intent is only to support some of them?

A concrete case: DITA. They have a 'translate' attribute. Why would they need to declare an its:translate definition in their DTD if
they don't use such declaration?

In addition, currently the schemas are not normative, so why the conformance would be depending on what is in them?

I'm probably missing something :)

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 12:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:09 UTC