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: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:36:33 +0100
Message-ID: <51DD4741.4020605@cs.tcd.ie>
To: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org
Hi all,
Comments inline:

On 07/07/2013 21:12, Yves Savourel wrote:
> 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.
We'd have a similar view related to the TCD implementation, we can 
accommodate the change in <script> if there is consensus on this 
approach being needed in the spec.

> 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.
Agreed, that would be my assumption.

> 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.

+1, and we are able to continue support for the test suite if needed. It 
would be good to get some additional 'native' HTML implementers to 
verify against any new tests that the CDATA approach really does work 
for them.

cheers,
Dave

> 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 Wednesday, 10 July 2013 11:36:43 UTC

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