RE: BP 24: what's all that about?

Mmm..

 
> "Avoid escaping (actual) markup in your documents in order to 
> avoid issues with namespaces."

The reason why it's bad to use escaped markup here is not related to namespaces. Using namespace is one solution, rather than the
problem. I'm not sure adding "(actual)" in the title will help either.

But you are right that for someone without having gone through the actual issue, the current explanations are too vague and can be
quite confusing.

I'll think more about it.

Maybe we'll come up with bright ideas at the teleconference.

Cheers,
-yves



-----Original Message-----
From: public-i18n-its-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Ishida
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:26 AM
To: 'Yves Savourel'; fsasaki@w3.org
Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
Subject: RE: BP 24: what's all that about?


I guess I would be fine if the BP said something like:

Avoid escaping (actual) markup in your documents in order to avoid issues with namespaces.

and added a note to explain that we don't mean content in examples, etc. I would also want to add some more explanatory text to
example 31 to say why the person did this this way - ie. what their motivation was, and where the markup came from.

Currently it just says

Avoid storing markup in escaped form in your documents.

which, i think, is not quite specific enough in its meaning, and lead me to suppose that you were also talking about escaping
content in things like examples.

Am I on the right track now?

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: 05 December 2007 12:51
> To: 'Richard Ishida'; fsasaki@w3.org
> Cc: public-i18n-its@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BP 24: what's all that about?
> 
> 
> 
> > I still don't see why one would ban <...&gt.
> 
> We are not trying to ban "<...&gt". They are obviously just fine 
> when they are literals. But here they are not. They are "<...>"
> from the viewpoint of the localizer.
> 
> The case of an example is different: in that case it's 'normal' 
> content and you can put markup in it. But in the case we are trying to 
> address in BP24, the content will be used as-it outside the XML 
> document.
> 
> I hope this helps,
> -yves
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 13:45:58 UTC