W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org > July 2013

RE: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:12:16 +0200
To: "'Daniel Glazman'" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
CC: "'Jirka Kosek'" <jirka@kosek.cz>, "'Pablo Nieto Caride'" <pablo.nieto@linguaserve.com>, 'Mārcis Pinnis' <marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv>, "'Thomas Ruedesheim'" <thomas.ruedesheim@lucysoftware.com>
Message-ID: <001b01ce7b4e$47f3d230$d7db7690$@com>
Hi all,

> Just to clarify one point: if there is a resolution 
> to stick to the current state of the spec, I will 
> accept it 100% and I won't raise an objection.
> ...

A few notes:

a) I obviously can't talk for other implementations, but I've looked at our source code for parsing the content of <script> and, from that viewpoint, implementing either solutions is very similar for us and would make no significant difference code-wise.

b) If we go for the CDATA option for <its:rules>, we probably want to do the same for the standoff markup notation as well (e.g. http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#EX-provenance-html5-local-2) ... So likely more changes, especially for tools creating or updating data categories with standoff notations.

c) If the CDATA option is the proper technical thing to do, we should probably go for that even if it gives us quite a bit of extra work.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers,
-yves


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Glazman [mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com] 
Sent: Sunday, July 7, 2013 9:16 PM
To: Phil Ritchie; Felix Sasaki
Cc: Jirka Kosek; Pablo Nieto Caride; Yves Savourel; Mārcis Pinnis; Thomas Ruedesheim; public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: call 10 July? (Re: Comments on section 6.2 of ITS 2.0)

On 07/07/13 19:43, Phil Ritchie wrote:

> I will be on the call and would support the proposal to *not* 
> introduce CDATA.

Just to clarify one point: if there is a resolution to stick to the current state of the spec, I will accept it 100% and I won't raise an objection. But I want everyone to fully understand the impact of such a decision: every single library, every single app, every single editor, every single filter will have to implement HTML-flavor-based switches for parsing, manipulation and serialization of inline ITS rules in HTML, and the DOM of ITS rules inside an html5 document will depend on the serialization of the document. Sorry, but urgghhh, to say exactly what I think of it...

</Daniel>
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 20:12:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:28 UTC