- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:53:16 +0900
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: 'Yves Savourel' <ysavourel@translate.com>, public-i18n-its@w3.org
Richard Ishida wrote: > Yves, > > I think we should discuss these points on the phone. During a telecon or > individually, I don't mind. > how about a discussion on the telecon? Cheers, Felix > 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 Friday, 16 November 2007 00:53:29 UTC