- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:43:11 +0200
- To: "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org>, w3c-html-wg@w3.org
- Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Hello Felix, Actually, your reply raised even more questions for us. Such as: > See also the conformance section > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/#conformance-product-schema : > [[At least one of the following MUST be in the schema: > * rules element > * one of the local ITS attributes > * span element > * ruby element XHTML 1.1 has both span and ruby. Does that make it conformant ITS? How about XHTML 1.0 which only has span? We don't understand how this could be conformant ITS. But more specifically, if there is no normative schema, how can it (the spec) be tested? > - However, we want to follow the XHTML modularization approach, and we > would like to have an XHTML modularization example in our XML i18n BP > document, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xml-i18n-bp-20060518/ > Also, in the XML i18n BP, we would recommend that any possible > proprietary modularization (as opposed to the ITS example, non-normative > one) related to HTML should follow the XHTML Modularization. > > > Would this address your concerns? Modularisation allows you to add markup modules to a language so that you build a language using building bricks rather than defining elements and attributes separately. This helps consistency between related families of markup languages. We think that defining an ITS module would be a good way to help people get ITS into their markup languages. Modularization is schema-language neutral. Once you have defined a module, you can 'implement' it in any number of schema languages, such as DTD, XML Schema or Relax. We're not sure what you mean by 'proprietary' here. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton For the HTML WG
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2006 13:43:40 UTC