Re: [ACTION-232] List of data categories

Hi Olaf, Shaun, all,

sorry, I missed the call and discussion on Monday: why is there a table
from you and one from Shaun? Are these going to be merged?

Best,

Felix

2012/10/23 Olaf-Michael Stefanov <olaf@stefanov.at>

>  Thanks, guys!
> Could you all let me/us know whether you want the *[dataCategory]*Rule attributes
> listed in the table?
> olaf-michael
>
>
> On 2012-10-23 18:37, Pablo Nieto Caride wrote:
>
> Yes I agree, a table with the correspondences between the XML and HTML attributes are really useful IMO!
>
> Pablo.
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]
> Enviado el: martes, 23 de octubre de 2012 18:13
> Para: 'Dave Lewis'
> CC: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Asunto: RE: [ACTION-232] List of data categories
>
> Yes, I think the table Shaun and Olaf worked on is useful regardless of the notation used for the attributes in the text of the specification.
>
> -ys
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Lewis [mailto:dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 9:44 AM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [ACTION-232] List of data categories
>
> Apologies, i hadn't caught up with that resolution about not being concerned editorially about favouring XML over HTML in the draft. So we don't need the neutral names after all. My apologies to Olaf for sending you on the wrong track there.
>
> We do however still need the table to show the correspondences between the XML and HTML attributes.
>
> We also wanted it to help track any differences that arise between the attributes available in the XML and HTML versions of each data category.
>
> So I think we need to maintain the table still for the time being.
>
> cheers,
> Dave
>
> On 23/10/2012 16:12, Yves Savourel wrote:
>
>  Hi all,
>
> Just making sure I understand:
>
> The table produced is to be put somewhere in the specification, so the reader can have an overall look at all data categories and their attributes. OK.
>
> But are we also planning to rename all the XML camel-cased attributes in the specification with the “neutral” spelling I see in the table?
>
> For example, we would replace: “Although the domainMapping attribute it is optional, its usage is recommended." by "Although the Domain Mapping attribute it is optional, its usage is recommended." ?
>
> (BTW: there is a typo there "it " should be removed)
>
> If that is the plan, I would caution against it.
>
> Using a "neutral" notation is (IMO) just making thing difficult for everybody: the HTML5 users still have to convert it to their HTML5 notation, but now the XML users have also to convert it.
>
> I don't think we're biased toward XML: that notation is just used more than the HTML5 one, and it's used by HTML5 users as well (global rules). Using the XML notation is just being practical.
>
> I thought we resolved that here:http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2012Oct/
> 0135.html
>
> so maybe I'm mis-understanding and the neutral notation is just for the table.
>
> -yves
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Felix Sasaki
DFKI / W3C Fellow