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

[Action Item] IST 2.0 and html5

From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:59:39 +0200
Message-ID: <51DD5ABB.6030607@disruptive-innovations.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: "public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org>
Hello HTML WG,

I accepted today an action item from the MLW-LT WG to ping you
about an issue related to html parsing of inline ITS 2.0 rules.

ITS 2.0 offers the possibility [1] to embed inline rules inside html5
documents through a <script type="application/its+xml"> element.
Example:

<html>
   <head>
     <meta charset="utf-8">
     <title>Test</title>
     <script type="application/its+xml">
       <its:rules xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its"
                  version="2.0"
                  queryLanguage="css">
         <its:translateRule selector="p"       translate="yes"/>
         <its:translateRule selector="acronym" translate="no"/>
       </its:rules>
     </script>
   </head>
   <body>
     <p>The acronym <acronym>W3C</acronym> is not translatable
        even if the paragraph containing it is translatable</p>
   </body>
</html>

The issue we are hitting is related to the parsing of such a document.
In the html serialization of html5, the DOM will show a text
node inside the script element, that node containing the textual
representation of the whole contents of the script element; on another
hand, the parsing of the xml serialization of the same document will
generate a script element containing a its-namespaced subtree...

I see this as problematic for two reasons:

1. I don't think the OM should change depending on the serialization
    used
2. this has an impact on implementations forced to use html-flavor
    switches for creation/edition/manipulation/serialization of inline
    ITS rules....

We would like to have your opinion on the above. Do you think the OM
for both html and xml serialization of a html5 document containing
inline ITS 2.0 rules should be the same or you don't see it as an
issue? If you think it should be the same, do you think encapsulating
inline 2.0 rules inside a CDATA section is a workable solution or do
you have another suggestion?
All your feedback on this issue - even beyond the questions just
above - will be highly appreciated!

Best regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#html5-inline-global-rules

</Daniel>
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 13:00:10 UTC

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