- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:03:34 +0900
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44CAFA36.9060707@w3.org>
Hello Martin, Richard, all, This is related to the ITS issues http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3466 ("Existing ruby markup") http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3494 ("termInfoRefPointer referant's data") These two issues have in common that they have relations to external specifications: 1) Ruby TR for 3466 2) Directionality as defined in XHTML 2.0 (if it a REC in time, otherwise HTML 4.01) for 3466 3) The IRI spec for 3466 I am worried about these relations. ITS allows for selecting nodes via global or local ITS markup, and attaching information to them, or pointing to existing information. What happens after selection, adding / pointing, is not the business of ITS anymore. That is, an implementation of ITS processing expectations, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-its-20060518/#conformance-product-processing-expectations does not process 1) Ruby information as demanded by the Ruby TR 2) Directionality information, relying on the BIDI algorithm and its manipulation 3) IRIs Of course, an implementation *on top of ITS* needs to do such processing to be able to do s.t. useful. But since such processing happens after ITS, I think the ITS spec cannot say anything normative about what should happen. If we would say s.t. normative here, we would need to provide tests about it. But I don't see how to test *with ITS alone* that 1) an ITS rule like <its:rubyRule select="//myns:ruby" rubyPointer="self::*" rbPointer="myns:rb" rtPointer="myns:rt"/> implies processing for the myns:ruby, myns:rb and myns:rt elements in the sense of the ruby TR 2) an ITS rule like <its:dirRule select="//*[myns:dir='rtl'] dir="rtl"/> manipulates the Bidi algorithm via the value of the dir attribute 3) an ITS rule like <its:locInfoRule select="//someElem" locInfoRefPointer="@myns:locInfoRef" points to an myns:locInfoRef attribute which contains an IRI as a value. So my proposals: - delete conformance clause 2-2 in the draft (which is about normative references to the ruby spec and XHTML 2), - cite Ruby, XHTML 2.0 (or HTML 4.01) and the IRI spec only informatively, and - tell implementers in a non-normative section what they should do - on top of ITS. What do you think? Since both of you have been heavily involved in the development of the three specs, your opinion would be of great value. Regards, Felix
Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 06:04:05 UTC