RE: More edits done

Yves, 

I think we should discuss these points on the phone.  During a telecon or
individually, I don't mind.

Cheers,
RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
 
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/blog/
http://rishida.net/

 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: 01 November 2007 19:42
> To: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: 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, 15 November 2007 19:35:22 UTC