Re: [All] edits, please review

Hi Tadej,

Well, this was my interpretation, and so it's very good to get these 
statements clarified. I was thinking of "content embedded" information 
for the 'type class', i.e. a "local link"...

Thanks and cheers -- Jörg

On Nov 14, 2012 at 08:55 (CET), Tadej Stajner wrote:
> Hi, Jörg,
> things are now easier to read. I got stuck on one part:
>
>      Disambiguation for target type class, which *explicitly* describes
> the type class of the underlying concept or entity of the fragment.
>
>      Disambiguation for target identity, which *implicitly* describes
> the intended meaning of the fragment through a link to an external resource.
>
> I'm not sure what's the intention behind the implicit/explicit
> differentiation. I interpret both as explicit markers - one of type, the
> other of identity.
>
> Also, both are in essence 'links to external resource'. @Felix, I
> suggest the following wording:
>
>   *
>
>     Disambiguation for target type class, a link to an external resource
>     that describes the type class of the underlying concept or entity,
>     mentioned in the fragment.
>
>   *
>
>     Disambiguation for target identity, a link to an external resource
>     that describes the intended meaning of the fragment.
>
>
>
> -- Tadej
>
>
> On 11/13/2012 5:40 PM, Jörg Schütz wrote:
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> Got your message, and here is some rework of the Disambiguation
>> section. I hope that I kept your spirit... ;-)
>>
>> Cheers -- Jörg
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2012 at 16:07 (CET), Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>> Thanks, Dave, for bringing these up (again). Look all good, I'll try to
>>> implement these on the plane. Still I hope that we will get feedback
>>> from others too, esp. about Disambiguation - here I made most of
>>> changes.
>>>
>>> - Felix
>>>
>>> 2012/11/13 Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie
>>> <mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>>
>>>
>>>     Felix,
>>>
>>>     haven't caught up with these latest changes, but some comments on
>>>     some of the older ones - but ignore them if they are not helpful.
>>>
>>>     - 1.5 out of scope
>>>     Yves, Arle and others may have a clearer view on this, but rather
>>>     than just referring to 'Localization parameters' or 'localization
>>>     properties', it would be clearer to refer to 'localization _project_
>>>     parameters' or 'localization _project_ properties.
>>>
>>>     - 1.6 important design principles
>>>     [minor point] you state "needed for the internationalization and
>>>     localization of XML schemas and documents and HTML5 documents", but
>>>     though schema play a role in the process, we don't literally deal
>>>     with localization of schema (apart from treating an xsd doc as any
>>>     other xml doc). so i suggest dropping the inclusion of schema in
>>>     this sentence.
>>>
>>>     [minor wording suggestion] - change; "For ITS markup that appears in
>>>     an XML instance, which XML nodes the ITS-related information
>>>     pertains to must be clearly defined."
>>>     to "For ITS markup that appears in an XML instance, *the XML nodes
>>>     to which the ITS-related information pertains must be clearly
>>> defined.*"
>>>
>>>     [minor improvement suggestion] under ease of integration, where you
>>>     discuss fitting into the W3C architecture you could add
>>>     "e.g. use of[XPath 1.0]
>>> <http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#xpath>for
>>>     the selection mechanism *and use of IRI's as references to relevant
>>>     external resources*"
>>>
>>>     5.5 Precedence between selections
>>>
>>>     for the note about precedence, should this also refer to override of
>>>     global information by local information and of local information by
>>>     local information in a more immediate ancestor? current it just
>>>     mentions 'rule elements'
>>>
>>>     1.1.1 Relationship to ITS1.0
>>>
>>>     [really minor - to improve clarity] We have the bullet: "Where ITS
>>>     1.0 data categories are implemented in XML, the implementation must
>>>     be conformant with the ITS 1.0 approach to XML to claim conformance
>>>     to ITS 2.0."
>>>
>>>     Though this is factually true, since we now include all the details
>>>     from ITS1.0 in ITS2.0 its perhaps redundant here as a statement
>>>     about conformance. It might then avoid people mistakenly seeking the
>>>     ITS1.0 test suite to claim ITS2.0 conformance.
>>>
>>>     cheers,
>>>     Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 12/11/2012 23:12, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>>>>     Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>     I did a lot of edits, see
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#changelog-since-20121023
>>>>
>>>>     change 6-12.
>>>>
>>>>     Tadej, can you esp. review the global rules change? See change 10
>>>>     and 11.
>>>>
>>>>     For all, then you write comments, please use mails with the action
>>>>     item numbers mentioned in the change log.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>     Felix
>>>>
>>>>     --
>>>>     Felix Sasaki
>>>>     DFKI / W3C Fellow
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Felix Sasaki
>>> DFKI / W3C Fellow
>>>

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 08:22:34 UTC