W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its@w3.org > July to September 2006

RE: Term="yes|no"

From: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:51:09 -0600
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: <public-i18n-its@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005f01c6cc2a$96612740$0300a8c0@Breizh>

Hi Felix, 

- Actually you are pointing out something I didn't touch on before because it seemed too obvious: I would add the value "no" to the
local term attribute as well. If we have "yes|no" available in global rules they should be available locally as well. So one could
do somethin like this:

<its:termRule selector="//kw" term="yes"/>
<p>This is some <kw its:term="no">text</kw></p>

- I'm not sure if I understand your point when some data categories do not have override.
They seem override to have to me:

for ruby, while it makes *much less* sense to use override because the nature of the information is not a flag but a specific text,
technically you can do it too:

<its:rubyRule rubyText="Click this image to see a larger version" selector="//@alt"/>
<its:rubyRule rubyText="World Wide Web Consortium" selector="//image[@src='w3c.png']/@alt"/>

And the same goes for localization information.

In any case, I would think any "flag"-type data category should have a way to override.

I guess to see the issue from a different viewpoint: how do we justify that term cannot have a "no" value (locally and globally)?
Currently to cancel a termRule from in an external file in a document instance you have to comment it out, which is not a good
option since such external file may be used by different document where the same rule is needed.
If I recall correctly the only reason we removed term="yes|no" and made limited local term to "yes" was because we thought the cases
for "no" simply did not exist. Which is clearly not the case.


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:52 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Re: Term="yes|no"

Hi Yves,

Sorry for being late in this discussion. I have some concerns in this

- It disconnects the global usage of the terminology data category with the local one. In the latter, we have only term="yes".
- It introduces a new functionality for global rules of overriding a "this is a term" rule, which again is not available locally.
- I think the comparison to xml:lang regarding overrides, which Martin introduced, is not appropriate, since xml:lang is only used
- You wrote "One should be able to override a previous rule that says a given element is a term.", but I'm not sure if this is
absolutely necessary. Translatability, directionality and elements within text use overrides, but the other data categories don't.

I'm also concerned that this change, esp. the disconnection between global and local, is rather substantive and not appropriate
during last call.

Again, sorry for being late and my concerns.


Yves Savourel wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have an action item to list the changes needed in the WD to add term="yes|no"
> http://www.w3.org/2006/08/23-i18nits-minutes.html#action01
> Here they are:
> A) Add term="yes" in <its:termRule> in the examples 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 27.
> B) In section 6.4.2: "is realized with a termRule element with a mandatory selector attribute."
> Would become:
> "is realized with a termRule element with a mandatory selector attribute and a mandatory term attribute with a value 'yes' or
> (or whatever more consistent formulation matches the one Christian has 
> come up with during the last edit of the data cat
> definitions)
> C) In section 6.4.3: The addition of term="yes|no" in the termRule's attributes list ODD definition.
> I think that is all.
> -yves
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 11:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:04:11 UTC