Re: Comments on ITS 2.0 draft

Hello all,

We received a number of comments about the ITS 2.0 draft that were incorporated into the specification. I apologize for not responding individually to all commenters to confirm that their changes were recorded and implemented.

The most extensive comments were received from Jörg Schütz, and here are some specific responses to his comments.

> 1. Move "Usage of HTML5" as indicated in ed. note. 1.5 Out of Scope.


> Note uses old definition of "XML localization properties", should be updated.

We did not update this definition. We really need a suggested alternative definition from someone for this. The present text reads:

“XML localization properties” is a generic term to name the mechanisms and data formats that allow localization tools to be configured in order to process a specific XML format. Examples of XML localization properties are the Trados “DTD Settings” file, and the SDLX “Analysis” file.

Any suggestions?

> 2. All examples might take "version='2.0'", or make a note to identicate
> the backward compatibility.


> 3. 1.4.2 Example 7: We don't need xlink:type; delete every reference (this
> is in accordance with the ed. note in 5.3 and the definition in 5.2.1.


> 4. 2.1 Selection. What does "ITS markup may take different shapes." mean?
> Be more specific. What about XPath 2.0 as well as XQuery, XSLT 2.0/3.0, and
> of course CSS 3; say something about relationships and/or support to/in ITS
> 2.0.

This is noted for the next revision. Revising it depends on some other aspects that are not yet handled, but there is an editorial note in the text to revise this when we are able.

> 5. 2.2 Overriding and inheritance. Example is quite intuitiv, but "header"
> should be also "head element".


> 6. 3.4 Selection. Misleading example, make explict which string should be
> translated.

We believe this is clear now.

> 7. 5.2.1 Global, Rule-based Selection. Ordered item list before Example 15:
> "an namespace declarations" should be "a namespace declaration" or
> "namespace declarations".

Fixed to the singular.

> 8. 5.2.2 Global selection within HTML5.  Should be "... HTML5 parsing
> produces a DOM tree which..."


> 9. 5.4. "Any rules..." should be "Any rule...". "In case of conflicts ...
> rule element" should be "... rules element...".

All done.

> Example 21: use of "|"
> should be described consistently, i.e. "and" vs. "or".

Not done. These are different grammatical constructions and we feel the intent is clear but that using and in both cases would make the second inaccurate while using or in both cases would make the first unclear. (In this case the bar means that if either appears it applies—thus the and in describing to which items it applies—while in the second case the logical OR applies since it does not mean that both must be found.)

> 10. 5.5. Example 22 needs some explanation otherwise it's quite isolated.

Agreed. We have added a paragraph to introduce it.

> 11. 5.6. What kind of conversion is intended?

This section remains to be written.

> 12. 6.2.3. Mention that "translate" is a HTML5 attribute otherwise it
> should have been "its-translate" to be consistent with the other markup
> declarations, e.g. Localization Note, Terminology, etc.

Note added

> 13. 6.5.3. Same as 12. for "dir" in HTML5 otherwise "its-dir".


> 14. 6.6.3 and 6.7.3 need the HTML5 declaration.

These are part of a larger rewrite of these sections and will be added.

> 15. 6.9 Domain. Description needs language streamlining... What does the
> second bullet point exactly mean? What are "workflow specific values"? What
> the following example specifiy a valid rule?
> <its:rules version="2.0">
>    <its:domainRule selector="/html/body"
>  domainPointer="/html/head/meta[@name='keywords'|@name='description']/@content"/>
> </its:rules>

This section was revised extensively between the version you saw and the current draft. Therefore we did not try to implement specific changes here but will ask you at the next publication (this week) if the new version meets yours approval.

> 16. 6.10 - 6.13. That's a pity the most interesting new declarations are
> postponed... :-(

Some of this has already been added internally. Much of it we know is almost ready, but we will not see until the next publication. (Note that publication is of drafts, so the fact that something is not in the current draft does not mean it will not be in the final spec.)



Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 09:11:06 UTC