- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 05:52:18 +0900
- To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- CC: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Hi Yves, all, Yves Savourel wrote: > Hi Christian, > > Some comments: > > > >> Best Practice 9: Provide xml:id specify unique identifiers >> New>Allow localizable elements to be annotated with unique identifiers >> > > I think the current title reads "Provide a way to specify unique identifiers" which seems in line with the other titles. > > > >> Provide a way to assign a unique identifier to localizable elements. >> New>Include xml:id in your DTD or schema to allow localizable elements >> New>to be annotated with unique identifiers. >> > > Yes, that is better I think. > > However we have to make sure of I think is xml:id: Is it the recommended way to declare IDs in XML? yes, it is. > I'm asking because it's > different than from xml:lang: In xml:lang there are no DTD way to attach a 'language code' semantic to an attribute, but for ID the > important thing is the type. Actually you often do not need to know the name of the ID to use it, even if it's not xml:id. > > I'm not against strongly recommending xml:id, I just would like to be sure it's the "official" way to go, like xml:lang is for > languages. > > > > >> Make sure the attribute xml:id, or a different attribute of type >> ID, is available, at least, the "paragraph" level, for the >> elements that contain translatable text. >> >> NEW>Make sure an attribute which represents a unique identifier is >> NEW>available at least for all elements that may contain translatable text. >> > > I see that we are back to having IDs on <emph> :) > Is it really a 'make sure'? I can see the usage in some cases, but one can do perfectly good localization without having ID down at > that level no? > > > >> NEW>Note: It is highly recommended to name the ID attributes "xml:id", >> NEW>and follow the rules put forth in [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id]. >> This increases the interoperability of these identifiers on the Web, >> and helps to make XML sub-resource linking robust. >> > > What is "XML sub-resource"? I'm guessing, but it sound maybe to muc. I would cut after "Web". Actually I would cut after > "identifiers": XML is used in plently of areas outside the Web. > > > >> NEW>Note: Internal or external declarations in DTDs or XSDs may assist >> NEW>in declaring and checking the unique identifiers. >> NEW>Note: Attention should be paid to the lexical forms and attribute >> NEW>value normalizations described in [http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-id]. >> > > Isn't this 'lexical form' mention go against your remark that other form of IDs could be used and be OK. I think that Christian is saying "other attributes of type ID". That is: name is not xml:id, but type is still ID. > A good example is Windows > GUID: they could start with a digit but are used as unique ID. > they are not of type ID. I would disagree with mentioning such examples as other than "bad practices". cheers, Felix
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 20:52:25 UTC