RE: [ACTION-155] (related to [ISSUE-16]) parameters for rules

I agree with Yves, I'd have thought that a basic requirement of a 
parameter is that it can be set from an initiating process.

Phil.





From:   Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
To:     <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>, 
Date:   06/07/2012 07:52
Subject:        RE: [ACTION-155] (related to [ISSUE-16]) parameters for 
rules



Hi Felix, all,

> ...So in addition to the technical issues, we need to 
> think about whether global implementations of ITS 2.0
> will support this, for each data category they implement.
> ...
> I would be reluctant to complicate this by saying 
> "some processor MAY implement parameters, other not".
>
> Any thoughts?

Just a couple of notes:

- We don't have restrictions about not using variables in XPath 
expressions, but we don't have a way to declare them and provide defaults. 
So I think it's important to have <its:param> (isn't it like fixing a 1.0 
oversight?)

- Should we make a distinction between:

A) supporting <its:param>, that it: understanding <its:param> and 
providing the defaults value to the XPath engine,

and B) (in addition) supporting overriding the ITS parameters, that is: 
providing a way (tool-specific) to set values other than the defaults?

I don't think it's very useful to support A without offering B. But from a 
conformance viewpoint maybe only A is required? I'm thinking that some 
tools may have issues implementing B. For example tools that currently 
rely on just processing the XML and the ITS rules (and have no way to set 
any addition options: no UI or no command-line options). But I'm probably 
just over-complicating things, and we don't need to make a distinction.

-ys






************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender immediately by e-mail.

www.vistatec.com
************************************************************

Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 08:27:47 UTC