- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 14:08:45 +0000
- To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000 ------- Comment #9 from fsasaki@w3.org 2006-03-23 14:08 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > My understanding is the same as Christian. o.k., so let's drop my proposal on "functionality specific" extensions. > Except that I would allow to add > stuff to <documentRules> as well. As Sebastian said, we can't prevent it anyway :) > > But don't we still have to explicitely allow this in the schema if we want to > be able to validate ITS elements? (at least with XML Schema (using ##any, > ##other, etc.), I don't know about RELAX NG) The generated schemas in the tagset draft are *not* normative. Both the conformance sections on schema conformance http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema and on processing expecations http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-processing-expectations don't talk about the generated schemas. That is: everybody is free to change them, or not to use them at all. > > For an example of extensions, here is one based on the input the Fujixerox > people gave you Felix: > > <its:documentRules xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" > xmlns:ext="myITSExtension"> > <its:translateRule its:translate="yes" its:selector="//@p[class='ml']" > ext:targetLanguages="en fr de" /> > <ext:MaxLengthRule ext:MaxLength="16" > ext:Selector="//ledString" /> > </its:documentRules> > Do you think we should have such an example in the spec?
Received on Thursday, 23 March 2006 14:08:53 UTC