Re: [ACTION-487][ISSUE-97][ISSUE--118] HTML5 Defaults

Am 17.04.13 11:46, schrieb Jirka Kosek:
> On 17.4.2013 11:10, Felix Sasaki wrote:
>> It has three drawbacks:
>> 1) Global rules are different than "real" defaults in terms of precedence.
> We have special section for HTML precedence (6.4 -
>, so
> we can modify it if necessary.

But with this "special purpose" precedence, things can get really unclear:
- how to handle HTML embedded in other content formats
- how to handle HTML not labelled as HTML5
- how to handle legacy HTML converted to HTML5 later, that is what 
expectations should (ITS local / global rules) authors have?

That is my main concern.

> Also we can create two rule files one providing defaults, second
> providing extraction of local ITS values. Then we can say something like:
> 1. Implicit local selection in documents (ITS local attributes on a
> specific element). *Local selection is defined by the following rules...*
> 2. Global selections in documents (using mechanism of external global
> rules or inline global rules), to be processed in a document order, see
> Section 5.2.1: Global, Rule-based Selection for details.
> 3. Selection via inherited values. *Inheritance rules are by provided by
> the following rules...*
> 4. Selections via defaults for data categories. *Defaults are provided
> by the following rules...*
> Then implementation is very easy -- it will just put global user-defined
> rules in between rules for 1. and 3. and will not interpret local ITS
> datacategories inside HTML.
>> 2) If we go this way we won't be able to speficy "how to work with
>> translate in HTML5" for "local only" implementations.
> We can say that "local only" implementations MUST behave as if the
> following rules will be used. Implementation doesn't have to support
> global approach, it just have to behave in the same way as is described
> in default rules.
>> 3) we will have a disalignment with the behaviour of HTML5 "translate"
>> implementations in browsers.
> Why, we can model rules in a way it matches this.
Agree with this one.

>     Jirka

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 13:33:21 UTC