Re: Section on XHTML modularization

Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Please have a look at
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/its-techniques.html#integration-its-xhtmlmod
> and the files
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/its-module.xsd (ITS
> module relying on XHTML MOD)
> http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/xhtml-plus-its.xsd
> (driver to use that module with XHTML)

The current schema driver adds its:rules into html.content group which
means that its:rules could occur almost anywhere in XHTML file. I think
that it is more reasonable to allow it only inside head. This would
probably mean adding its:ruby into HeadOpts.mix group.

> Note that the schemas are hand-crafted , the abstract definition as
> well. Please have a look for mistakes. There is one issue I don't know
> how to solve yet: what to do with existing HTML markup "dir" and "ruby"?

I think that for things which are handled by XHTML we should not add ITS
markup. The reason is that to XHTML "dir" and "ruby" will understand
each XHTML agent. But ITS "dir" and "ruby" will be recognized only by
specialized CAT software.

I think that for such purposes section "5.1.3 Relating ITS to Existing
Markup in XHTML" is sufficient.

Regarding ruby markup: In XHTML Basic 1.0 there is no ruby, it is only
in "full" XHTML 1.1. So I think that schema should also add its:ruby
into XHTML content models. Or we could base XHTML+ITS schema on XHTML
1.1 -- but this version of XHTML is not supported by major browser :-(

> We could say "use the HTML markup instead of ITS", but what to do for
> the "nested case" (e.g. the "its:locNote" element contains a "dir"
> attribute). 

What is the problem here? Could you explain it more or provide example.

> Another question related to this: do we need the ITS span
> attribute? I'd say no, because it's purpose is fulfilled by adding local
> ITS attributes to the "common" group of XHTML.

Indeed. And there is XHTML span for cases when you must specify e.g.
translatability of otherwise unmarked text.

> I think this is enough to prove "work in progress" and to go back to the
> HTML WG. 

Which HTML WG? XHTML 2 or HTML 5? (I'm sorry, I'm just kidding.) ;-D

I tryed your schema and it seems that xlink.xsd schema is not available
at expected place:

SystemID: http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/its-module.xsd
Location: 4:85
Description: schema_reference.4: Failed to read schema document
'xlink.xsd', because 1) could not find the document; 2) the document
could not be read; 3) the root element of the document is not <xsd:schema>.
URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#schema_reference

HTH,

			Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO/JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Want to speak at XML Prague 2007 => http://xmlprague.cz/cfp.html