- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:27:38 +0900
- To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <442AB57A.6070702@w3.org>
.. are at http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html and below as
text.
Btw., most of the accepted issues mean changes in the working draft. As
said elsewhere, I'll send a mail for each change.
- Felix
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
i18n ITS working group
29 Mar 2006
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0196.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-irc
Attendees
Present
Andrzej, Christian, Diane, Felix, Goutam, Sebastian, Yves
Regrets
Chair
Yves
Scribe
Felix
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules (and in
general)
2. [6]How should we rename documentRules and the
xyzMap/PassThrough/Pointer attributes?
3. [7]close list of schema languages?
4. [8]naming of former "map" attributes
5. [9]ITS new schema syntax
6. [10]Discuss description of ITS (what is ITS? how to use
it?)
7. [11]further action items (including "link" proposal)
8. [12]Items for coming week
9. [13]namespace use in the DITA example
10. [14]call on Friday
11. [15]other business
* [16]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
Allowing extensibility in its:documentRules (and in general)
Yves: do we need a mechanism or not?
<YvesS> [17]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000
[17] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000
Yves: there is consensus we don't need to say anything, except
saying "extensiblity is handled through namespaces"
... I thought we should have extension points
... Sebastian and Felix said it would harm validation power
Sebastian: You have to decide where you have rules, e.g. in the
schema or separate (e.g. via schematron)
... it just depends what you suggest to do
... you cannot prevent anything
... what is more common: Things we thought about and did not have
time, or very unusual things?
Andrzej: I agree with Sebastian
Yves: o.k.
... Felix said we should have an extension example in the paragraph
about extension
... that's it. Everybody agree?
Christian: one remark:
... "people should first check with the standard ITS mechanism, and
then think about extensions"
Felix: I'll take the phrase from bugzilla
Yves: o.k., let's do that
How should we rename documentRules and the xyzMap/PassThrough/Pointer
attributes?
<YvesS> [18]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000
[18] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3000
Yves: two items: documentRules element, and former "mapping"
attributes
... first "documentRules":
... "itsGlobal", "global", ...
... so how about "itsRules" or "rules"?
Sebastian: technical point:
... lower case "its" is strange
... since it is not a word
Yves: only rules, with the prefix "its"?
Andrzej: "its:rules" is good
Sebastian: +1
Felix: +1
Christian: +1
Yves, Diane: +1
close list of schema languages?
<YvesS> [19]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924
[19] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2924
yves: need to rephrase some text, that we don't close the list of
proposed schemas
... Christian, why "modeling or"?
Christian: taken from one of Eric's article
Felix: +1
Yves: o.k., let's go for that
naming of former "map" attributes
yves: instead of "mapping": "passThrough" or "pointer"
Sebastian, Felix: vote for pointer
Christian, Diane: +1
Andrzej, Yves: +1
ITS new schema syntax
<YvesS>
[20]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
301.html
[20]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html
Felix: part of the proposal: have separate patterns for each data
category in rule or local usage
... and have the definitions in each sections specifically
Yves: as for Ruby: currently we have only simple ruby, how about
complex ruby
Felix: I tried to integrate that into the latest version
Sebastian: About the proposal of having attributes in rules without
prefix
Yves: discuss that later
... Felix, make the changes in the draft
Discuss description of ITS (what is ITS? how to use it?)
<YvesS>
[21]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
406.html
[21]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0406.html
richards answer:
[22]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
477.html
[22]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0477.html
Yves: everybody agrees?
... o.k., Christian can make the changes
further action items (including "link" proposal)
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to enter xhtml sectio into draft (DONE)
[recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to add proposal for link mechanism into
bugzilla (DONE) [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
Yves: summary of link proposal
... see [25]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3050
... proposal would be <its:link xlink:href="someRules.xml"/>
[25] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3050
Sebastian: where would that element be?
... I proposed it as a child of rules, to have only one entry point
in the schema
... e.g. instead of e.g. translateRule, you would have its:link as a
child of <its:rules>
... and how about precedence?
Yves: as for precedence: I think all rules should have same priority
Felix: I'd go for Sebastian's proposal: <its:rules><its:link>
...</its:rules>
Andrzej: +1
... with xlink:href
Sebastian: you could also say <its:rules xlink:href"someRules">
Yves: and that would have precedence other what is in the content of
<its:rules>
Christian: I'd still go for processing instructions
Sebastian: we don't have to rule out processing instructions
... because a schema cannot say s.t. about them
... i.e., you cannot enforce a syntax of processing instructions
Andrzej: PIs are rather weak
Christian: two points:
... one is: PIs have no need to touch a schema to establish the
relationship between my instance and ITS rules
Felix: how about declaring the xlink:href attribute, and giving PIs
as an example?
Sebastian: PIs e.g. in XSLT are quite problematic
... how about having an example how it could be done with PIs?
Yves: so we have an optional attribute xlink:href in the its:rules
element
... and have a text in the spec: PIs are another way to do it
... or tools use command line parameters
... difference to PI: the xlink:href mechanism is interoperable
... and an ITS processor must understand it
felix: how about having this as a SHOULD
Yves: it should be a MUST
Sebastian: yes
Felix: sorry, I was wrong
Christian: so if the attribute is used, the processor MUST go to the
location?
Yves: right
... o.k., consensus to have xlink:href in the its:rules element that
will point to external rules
... and a paragraph about that and PIs and other ways of doing it
<scribe> ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech (DONE)
[recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
[27]http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/content/speakers
[27] http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/content/speakers
[28]http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/asset/name/5/xtech_template_v0.6.ot
t
[28] http://xtech06.usefulinc.com/asset/name/5/xtech_template_v0.6.ott
<scribe> ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
conformance discussion in the spec. (PENDING) [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]
Yves: an item for next week
<scribe> ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
how to use its:locInfoRef (ONGOING) [recorded in
[30]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]
<scribe> ACTION: Spec editors to put a note on for grouping data
categories in next working draft (DONE) [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]
[32]http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#dat
acat-selection-position
[32]
http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#datacat-selection-position
<scribe> ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
conformance for Ruby (PENDING) [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]
Felix: I told Richard that if he does not deliver this in time, it
will not happen
Yves: o.k.
<scribe> ACTION: Spec editors to integrate discussion result about
bugs 2881,2,3 (ONGOING) [recorded in
[34]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]
Yves: cannot be decided before terminology discussion
Items for coming week
Felix's agenda proposal:
[35]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0
193.html
[35]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0193.html
Yves: next week we'd talk about versioning
... the other two in Felix's mail are done
... I'd like to have: discussion about naming: "datacategory"
... "tagset", and "localization property" (come up with a
definition)
Felix: I'd like to publish again on April 11, if we decide on these
issues
... I'll post mails for each change
namespace use in the DITA example
[36]http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
[36] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3008
Yves: issue is the example for the DITA modularization
... Jirka says that here is a problem
Sebastian: Jirka said in the instance doc you need the namespace
thing
... in the rules file it is redundant
... then he said "//p[translate='yes'] in a rule document
... means s.t. different than <p its:translate="..." in the instance
... the first is talking about a different document, the second
about the node itself
Yves: DITA uses a namespace
... they force the empty namespace
... and have a prefix for the DITA architectural version
... so we write //*[@translate='yes']
... so it is a bug of the example, and we should fix it
Yves: other topic: prefix on attributes
Sebastian: we should allow it without prefix
call on Friday
Yves: it would be great to have decisions on the naming stuff on
Friday
Andrzej: I will be away for next three weeks
other business
Christian: usage of stylesheets
... is fine, I only need a schema for ITS
... so I need a schema or DTD
Sebastian: I'll send another "working" xsd file
Summary of Action Items
[PENDING] ACTION: Christian and Felix need to update their result of
conformance discussion in the spec. [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action04]
[PENDING] ACTION: Editor's of the techniques document: give examples
how to use its:locInfoRef [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action05]
[PENDING] ACTION: Richard to describe an additional level of
conformance for Ruby [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action07]
[PENDING] ACTION: Spec editors to integrate discussion result about
bugs 2881,2,3 [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action08]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to add proposal for link mechanism into
bugzilla [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action02]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to enter xhtml sectio into draft [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action01]
[DONE] ACTION: Felix to provide ODF template for XTech [recorded in
[43]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action03]
[DONE] ACTION: Spec editors to put a note on for grouping data
categories in next working draft [recorded in
[44]http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#action06]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [45]scribe.perl version 1.127
([46]CVS log)
$Date: 2006/03/29 16:24:14 $
[45] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[46] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 16:27:53 UTC