RE: More edits done

Hi Richard, all,

Some notes on you latest edits:


-- BP 8

a) Using elements for notes

It seems a lot of the change has to do with encouraging the usage of elements for loc notes.
Which is fine, but --I think-- only if the element is part of the host namespace and "in-situ" and *does not get in the way* of the
translatable text.

Encouraging to store notes in locNoteRule elements is, I think, not something I would recommend often. It breaks the relation
between comments and commented content, since they would probably be very separated. It assumes the document will be somehow
processed with ITS and the comments will be presented along with the commented part. But that is far from being the majority of the
cases. Having the notes right along the commented parts is better, by far.

I think the drawback of not being able to use <span> in comments is not as bad as separating comments from commented content.


b) Example 10 and 11

The examples 10 and 11 you have added are examples are not illustration of "How to implement this as a new feature", they show how
to use the feature. So seems they should be in BP 21 in section 3
<http://www.w3.org/International/its/techniques/its-techniques.html#AuthLocNote>?

You will note that all the other examples (in ITS-related BPs) in section 2 have to do with how to associate existing markup with
ITS data categories. We have not provided examples on how users would use the markup in section 2, but in section 3.

If you think an example is necessary, maybe something like "For example of use "


c) locNotePointer

The changed paragraph: "The its:locNoteRule element also allows you to specify notes in an a separate XML document via the
locNotePointer attribute, ..."

I think 'separate' is wanted here. locNotePointer takes a relative XPath expression as argument, and (maybe I'm wrong and if so,
please correct me) there are no way in XPath 1.0 to point outside the current document. XSLT has a document() function, but that's
XSLT.

So the original text: "The its:locNoteRule element also allows you to specify existing notes in an a XML document via the
locNotePointer attribute, or to provide an existing reference to notes via the locNoteRefPointer attribute." seemed to be more
correct, albeit maybe not very clear or elegant.



-- BP 9

The new text of the note: "Note: The benefits outlined below are dependent on identifiers being globally unique (i.e. unique across
any documents) and persistent (i.e. ones which do not change over time)." is not quite true: all the items listed in the Why do this
can be done without *globally unique* identifier, they just have to be unique within each document.

The 'Why do this' applies to the hole BP, not just when using globally unique and persistent ID.

Maybe "Using identifiers that are globally unique (i.e. unique across any documents) and persistent (i.e. ones which do not change
over time) often provides additional benefits." was too vague.

How about: "Unique identifiers are most useful when their values are globally unique (i.e. unique across any documents) and
persistent (i.e. ones which do not change over time)."


Cheers,
-yves

Received on Thursday, 1 November 2007 19:41:33 UTC