RE: AI: Precedence order re-wording

Hi Felix and all,

I guess I got the point (ie. understood what was missing from my
understanding). With the new view, I would go for a note related to
tool-specific linking (see below).

Cheers,
Christian

1- Implicit local selection in documents (ITS local attributes on a specific
 element)
 
2- Global selections in documents (using a rules element)
 	Inside each rules element the precedence order is:
 	a- Any rules inside the rules element
 	b- Any rules linked via the XLink href attribute
 
 Note: If identical selections are defined in different rules elements
within
 one document, the selection defined by the last takes precedence.

 Note: ITS doesn't define precedence related to rules defined or linked
based
	on non-ITS mechanisms (such as processing instructions for linking
rules).
 
 3- Selections via defaults for data categories, see Section 6.1: Position,
 Defaults, Inheritance and Overriding of Data Categories

-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: Montag, 15. Januar 2007 03:14
To: Lieske, Christian
Cc: Yves Savourel; public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: Re: AI: Precedence order re-wording


Hi Christian,

I think your proposal implements what I called "version b", i.e. "have
tool-specific external rules applied to each rule element separately".
However, I think Yves proposed (what I later called) "version a":
"external, tool specific rules are related to a complete file".

E.g. assume the file below:
<doc>
<rules-el>
<rule-int-1.../>
<rule-int-2.../>
</rules-el/>
...
<rules-el>
<rule-int-3.../>
</rules-el/>
</doc>

and the external rule <rule-ext-1 .../>. There are three ways to
integrate this external rule:

- "version a": put it at the end of all internal rules, so after
<rule-int-3 .../> . This leads to the order rule-int-1, rule-int-2,
rule-int-3, rule-ext-1.
- "version b" variant 1: put it at the end of the first internal rules
element. This leads to the order rule-int-1, rule-int-2, rule-ext-1,
rule-int-3.
- "version b" variant 2: put it at the end of the second internal rules
element. This leads to the order rule-int-1, rule-int-2, rule-int-3,
rule-ext-1. (same as version a)

Cheers,

Felix


> Hi there,
> 
> Hmm, maybe I am missing something but currently I have got the feeling
that
> with modifications under discussion
> 
> A. We don't need #3 altogether
> B. We may want to reword #3.c
> C. We may want to have a note about multiple rules
> 
> Thus, we would get
> 
> ===
> 1- Implicit local selection in documents (ITS local attributes on a
specific
> element)
> 
> 2- Global selections in documents (using a rules element)
> 	Inside each rules element the precedence order is:
> 	a- Any rules inside the rules element
> 	b- Any rules linked via the XLink href attribute
> 	c- Any selections defined or linked via a tool-specific mechanism.
> 
> Note: If identical selections are defined in different rules elements
within
> one document, the selection defined by the last takes precedence.
> 
> 3- Selections via defaults for data categories, see Section 6.1: Position,
> Defaults, Inheritance and Overriding of Data Categories
> ===
> 
> Cheers,
> Christian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Freitag, 12. Januar 2007 15:11
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: Re: AI: Precedence order re-wording
> 
> 
> Hi Yves,
> 
> Yves Savourel wrote:
>> Hi Felix, 
>>
>> Mmmm...
>>
>> Your proposal sounded good to me first. Then I thought what if we have
>> several <rules> elements?
> 
> good point!
> 
>> Then some of the 'xlinked' rules need to be processed before some of the
>> embedded rules since we are processing the <rules> in the order we find
>> them.
>>
>> For example we have:
>>
>> <file>
>>  <head>
>>   <its:rules xlink="xlinkedrules1.xml" ...>
>>    <its:translateRule embeddedrule1 .../>
>>   </its:rules>
>>  <head>
>>  ...
>>  <footer>
>>   <its:rules xlink="xlinkedrules2.xml" ...>
>>    <its:translateRule embeddedrule2 .../>
>>   </its:rules> </footer>
>> <file>
>>
>> The precedence order would be:
>> Embeddedrule2
>> Xlinkedrule2
>> Embeddedrule1
>> Xlinkedrule1
>> Then any external rule associated with tool specific mechanism
> 
> Does this have to be the case? The draft is not clear if external, tool
> specific rules are related to a complete file or to each separate
> <rules> element. Since we don't say anything about the mechanism, both
> could be the case.
> 
>> So we should really have:
>>
>> -----
>> 2- Global selections in documents (using a rules element)
>> 	Inside each rules element the precedence order is:
>> 	a- Any rules inside the rules element
>> 	b- Any rules linked via the XLink href attribute
>> 3- Global selections in an external file (using a rules element), linked
>> via a tool-specific mechanism
> 
> Let's call this "version a". If we would have tool-specific external
> rules applied to each rule element separately, it would be "version b":
> 
> -----
> 2- Global selections in documents (using a rules element)
> 	Inside each rules element the precedence order is:
> 	a- Any rules inside the rules element
> 	b- Any rules linked via the XLink href attribute
> 	c- Any rules linked via an external file, using a rules element,
> linked
> via a tool-specific mechanism.
> -----
> 
> 
> 
>> -----
>>
>> Actually this a and b is also valid for #3.
> 
> I think we can't say that, it depends whether your tool specific
> implementation processes tool-specific linking which is sensitive for
> resolution of the XLink attribute. That would be useful, but since we
> don't say anything about the mechanism, we can't really require it.
> 
>  maybe there is a better way
>> to express this?
> 
> One solution could be: we make clear in the draft in a note that both
> "version a" and "version b" are possible, it's up to you what you do.
> And we would leave
> "3. Global selections in an external file (using a rules  element),
> linked via the XLink href attribute or a different mechanism"
> as it is ..., with an intended ambiguity.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Felix
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2007 09:47:20 UTC