- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:29:10 +0900
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44375836.80403@w3.org>
Hi Yves, all, Yves Savourel wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Piggy-backing on some time left at the end of the editors' > teleconference today, Christian, Felix and I were able to discuss of the > "Shall ITS allows several <rules> elements in a single document?" > question as well as the "What the ITS xlink:href link points to > exactly?" question, that were generated from the Versionning discussion. > > And we even reached a consensus that hopefully you will share: > > We propose that: > > -#1- Only one <rules> element should be allowed per document. We think > it covers most of the cases, and allowing more than one would result in > quite a few headaches in processing/conformance while not adding much > benefits. I have integreated a text proposal from Yves for the linking mechanism into the draft, see http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#link-external-rules and please comment. Note that if we go for our proposal #1, we need to change 1-1: The rules element must be part of the content model of at least one element declared in the schema. It should be in a document model for meta information, if this is available in that schema (e.g. the head element in XHTML). to 1-1: The rules element must be part of the content model of one element declared in the schema. It must not be allowed to occur several times. It should be in a document model for meta information, if this is available in that schema (e.g. the head element in XHTML). Cheers, Felix > > This is a change from the current specification insofar as we didn't > have any explicit wording forbidding several <rules> to be in a single > file (and therefore it was implicitely allowed). > > > -#2- The xlink:href attributes of the <rules> element points to an > arbitrary XML document that contains a <rules> element. That element can > be the root element or elsewhere in the document (and there is only one > per #1). > > This is a clarification of the linking mechanism rather than a change. > The next updated specification should include a section describing the > linking mechanism as we agreed already. > > > If you see any problem with either #1 or #2 please make sure to post > your comments. > > Cheers, > P.S. The discussion on versionning is still going on: > See this thread: > _http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006AprJun/0015.html_ > > > >
Received on Saturday, 8 April 2006 06:29:20 UTC