- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:37:44 +0900
- To: "Lieske, Christian" <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <443519A8.6080703@w3.org>
Lieske, Christian wrote: > Hi Felix, > > It indeed is a somewhat different question. However, it addresses the > assumption on which Yves' > question is based. If the assumption does not hold, Yves' question may > not be relevant any longer. It's o.k. to discuss Yves question, but I am also looking for feedback on my proposal ;) Do you think you could give that? - Felix > > Best, > Christian > > -----Original Message----- > From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] > Sent: Donnerstag, 6. April 2006 15:25 > To: Lieske, Christian > Cc: Yves Savourel; public-i18n-its@w3.org > Subject: Re: Versioning > > Hi Christian, > > Lieske, Christian wrote: >> Hi Yves and all, >> >> Question related to >> >>> what if there are several <rules> elements in the document? (it's not >> forbidden, and may be caused by tools >>> automatically inserting <rules>). >> >> Do we really want to allow for this? > > I think this is a different question than the versioning mechanism. What > do you think about the mechanism I proposed? > > Cheers, > > Felix > > >> Don't we open a can of worms since >> for example we would need to say >> sth. about possible contradictions between statements in different >> "rules". Think for example of the case >> where rule set 1 specifies all "p" to be translated whereas rule set 2 >> specifies all "p" as _not_ to be >> translated. >> >> Best regards, >> Christian >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] >> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 5. April 2006 18:03 >> *To:* Lieske, Christian; 'Felix Sasaki'; diane.m.stoick@boeing.com >> *Cc:* public-i18n-its@w3.org >> *Subject:* Versioning >> >> Hi Christian, Felix, Diane, >> >> A follow up on the version topic. We didn't thought about some > cases >> that makes our current consensus a bit arguable: what if there are >> several <rules> elements in the document? (it's not forbidden, and >> may be caused by tools automatically inserting <rules>). >> >> Currently we have: >> >> #1: If there is only ITS local markup in the document, the >> its:version goes in the root element of the document. >> >> #2: If there is a <rules> element (with or without additional > local >> markup), the its:version goes in the <rules> element, not in the >> root of the document. >> >> Issues: >> >> --> If 'somehow' a document has an its:version both in the root of >> the document and in the <rules> element, I assume the one in the >> root element should be ignored (but things would change if later > we >> decide to allow multiple verisons) >> >> --> If you have two or more <rules> elements, the its:version in > the >> first <rules> should prevail? Or each version prevails for its >> <rules>? And which one applies the the local markup? >> >> >> I realize that these cases are related to the "do we allows ITS of >> different versions to be processed together" discussion that we > said >> was premature, but it seems very difficult to apply our current >> consensus to those two issues without knowing the answer to the >> question. >> >> I'm a bit concern that all this seems quite confusing compare to >> just have one its:version in the root element in all cases... > (which >> also makes the "do we allows ITS of different versions to be >> processed together" question much easier to resolve by restricting >> the possibilities of different versions to one per document at > most). >> Any comment? >> -yves >> > >
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 13:37:59 UTC