Re: Term="yes|no"

Martin Duerst wrote:
> Yes, we definitely need the 'no' value locally.
> Orthogonality, simplicity, completeness, and so on all
> very strongly speak for it. Is there any other stuff in
> ITS that might be similarly missing some values in some
> cases? That would be a bad thing and should be fixed.

this would have been the only case of an attribute with just one value.

> 
> The parallel with xml:lang may not be complete. But please
> note that there is not a single property in CSS, for example,
> that accepts some range of values when given in an (e.g.
> external) stylesheet and some others when in a style
> attribute.
> 
> So I completely agree with Yves here.

me - after yesterday's call -  as well.

Regards, Felix

> 
> Regards,    Martin.
> 
> At 20:51 06/08/30, Yves Savourel wrote:
>> 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.
>> No?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -yves
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----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
>> change:
>>
>> - 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
>> locally.
>> - 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.
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> 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
>> 'no'."
>>> (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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
> 
>