- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 08:14:50 +0200
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de>, public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL58czoJ5WQtKAGUcnKcYrWFH=t0y-gU-p8xuPod85v0BTGyxA@mail.gmail.com>
This sounds good to me, thanks, Jirka. One thought though: we have a lot of links to the schema definitions like <gi>its:translateRule</gi> <att>its-loc-note</att> in your proposal, what would happen to these links? Should we just remove them? We could also keep them (including the styling) and have as the link target (generated by XSLT ODD2XMLSPEC) the section which contains the markup declarations. - Felix 2012/9/10 Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> > On 9.9.2012 14:04, Felix Sasaki wrote: > > Same here - of course, Jirka, feel free to take that action item to do > the > > refactoring :) , if that works for you. > > Hi, > > unfortunatelly I have realized that it will not be so easy. As > specification uses TEI ODD, schema is composed semiautomatically from > fragments and what I want to do is not possible with ODD at least > without extending and rewriting parts of ODD machinery. > > So one more even radical thought: > > What about completely removing all sections "Markup Declarations..." > which include fragments of schema. We can author schema in hand and put > it into appendix or link it from appendix. > > I see some advantages of this approach: > > - specification will be shorter for reading because it will not be > interleaved with schema fragments > > - specification might seem more "HTML5-friendly" as it will not be > dispersed by fragments of RNC/BNF syntax > > - we will create much better and reasonably designed schemas: > > -- schema with definition of datatypes only > -- schema with definition of generic ITS elements/attributes (which will > reference base datatypes) > -- schema with definition of HTML5-only ITS attributes (which will > reference base datatypes) > > Disadvantages: > > - all changes made in spec have to be transfered into separate schema. > It will be easier to forgot to do this. On the other hand I can double > check schema before each significant release. Also currently schema is > inlined, but all definitions are repeated three times so there is also > high chance for not syncing everything. > > Opinions, thoughts? > > Jirka > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Professional XML consulting and training services > DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- Felix Sasaki DFKI / W3C Fellow
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 06:15:19 UTC