- From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:06:54 +0200
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki Sent: Dienstag, 25. April 2006 14:28 To: Yves Savourel Cc: Lieske, Christian; public-i18n-its@w3.org Subject: Re: Action Item: http://www.w3.org/2006/04/19-i18nits-minutes.html#action01 (handling of inclusions) Hi Yves, all, Yves Savourel wrote: > Hi Felix, all, > >> It seems that it was clear to Sebastian, only unclear to Yves >> and me, so how about adding just one sentence to your proposal: >> >> <note> >> The XPath expressions used by ITS selection assume that any inclusions >> (such as those based on XInclude) are resolved before selection is >> applied. Accordingly, inclusion mechanisms such as XInclude or DITA's >> <gi>conref</gi> may need to be followed before ITS selections are >> applied. </note> >> >> that is: >> [[However, to avoid interoperability problems, the interpretation of >> XPath expressions within the ITS selections MUST NOT require that >> inclusion mechanisms are processed.]] > > But wouldn't this addition contradict the first sentence? If we assume inclusions are resolved it means we've probably processed > them. the sentence contains "may need to be followed", which maybe causes the ambiguity. How about this, as a proposal for the whole paragraph: XPath expressions used by ITS selection do not rely on any inclusion mechanisms like XInclude or DITA's <att>conref</att> attribute. To avoid interoperability problems, the interpretation of XPath expressions within the ITS selections MUST NOT require that inclusion mechanisms are processed. - Felix
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 14:07:15 UTC