- From: Lieske, Christian <christian.lieske@sap.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:06:09 +0100
- To: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Dear all, I have been pondering about an observation related to Ruby which I made quite a while ago ... An example which reflects our current proposal for Ruby looks as follows: <dita:topic xmlns:dita="http://dita.oasis-open.org/architecture/2005/" xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" DITAArchVersion="1.0" id="myTopic"> <dita:title>Some little topic</dita:title> <dita:body> <dita:p>This is about the <its:ruby> <its:rubyBase>W3C</its:rubyBase> <its:rubyText>World Wide Web Consortium</its:rubyText> </its:ruby> .</dita:p> </dita:body> </dita:topic> >From my understanding, "rubyBase" plays a role in what we have termed "selection". Following this line of thought, one arrives at the following observations: 1. we have a different selection mechanism for Ruby than for other data categories 2. we a selector with contingent ITS markup (put differently: "rubyBase" which serves as a kind of designator for the "target" of the annotation in "rubyText" appears inside the host vocabulary, not in a "documentRule" or "schemaRule") I wonder, if this observation is a valid one and whether we need to act upon it. If we would draw an analogy to the solution we have e.g. for the "translatability" data category, we could for example come up with the following: <dita:topic xmlns:dita="http://dita.oasis-open.org/architecture/2005/" xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" DITAArchVersion="1.0" id="myTopic"> <dita:title>Some little topic</dita:title> <its:documentRules> <its:documentRule its:ruby="World Wide Web Consortium" its:rubySelector="its:rubyBase[id='42']" /> </its:documentRules> <dita:body> <dita:p>This is about the <its:rubyBase id="42 ">W3C</its:rubyBase>.</dita:p> </dita:body> </dita:topic> Best regards, Christian
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 09:08:14 UTC