Re: Proposal: not having mapping for the translatability and the dir category

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 
> 
> Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> I like dirty, but useful design :)
> 
> Hmm. This is what we do as individuals. When we are
> working for a standards organisation, I'd argue that
> dirty design will always come back to make trouble
> further down the line.
> 
> I would not burn at the stake for this, but
> I think that simple designs have patterns which
> apply across the board. Having category A
> useable in one way, and category B work in two ways,
> seems odd. But I take Yves' point that it
> is possible to draw a syntactic distinction
> between information categories with enumerated
> values, and those with unrestricted text.

Sorry, I should have explained "dirty" in more detail:
a) Having mapping for each data category is "clean" in terms of the
whole ITS tag set design. It is, however "dirty" for a user who only is
interested in one data category, because it gives him an overload he
does not want.
b) Having mapping for only a subset of data categories is just the other
way round: "clean" for the users, but "dirty" for the language design.

There is no perfect solution here. However, a main parameter seems to me
"conformance". Since we seem to go the route of allowing people to
implement only a single data category, it seems to me that b) will be a
common scenario.

> 
> 
>> - On general importance of "mapping": I am afraid that we are loosing
>> our perspective. IMO it should not be "let's describe everything with
>> equal importance, which is possible with ITS?", but rather "let's
>> concentrate on core features". Mapping is not a core feature (IMO)
> 
> If it's not a core feature, then lets not do it at all.
> Leave it for version 2, and see if it is really needed :-}

We can leave it for now and see how people will beat us during last call ...

- Felix