RE: ACTION-447: Make a batch transformation of the test suite to xliff

I Felix,

> 1) local markup author creates <span its-within-text="no"><span> ...</span></span>,
> assuming that the inheritance from the outer span will have its-within-text="no"
> also for the inner span
> 2) the "local markup author does not know whether an ITS tool implementating 
> "Translate" will apply the defaults or not
> 3) we won't have interop between tools.
> We could avoid that with a "MUST" statement: a tool implementing ITS for a given 
> data category MUST take the defaults into account. But that would mean having test 
> cases with default / not default rules. Actually I think this would be good to 
> assure more interop. But it would take time. Are we willing to take that time?

You are right, even if it's just in a BP Note, at least the tool stating they follow the BP will have to abide by this.

I agree that having test cases with default would be great.
I think ENLASO can provide one or two example files that exercise most of the default behavior, but we would only generate an output that reflect all and only the data categories we support. That is: no file showing output for a single data category and no file showing an output for Ruby.
I think that still would be useful for implementers, even if it could not be always used like the test suite files are.

> Then, another question: do we expect all HTML implementing tools to implement 
> the defaults? Or only the "global rules" implementers. That is, if I say
> "I implement HTML support locally": can local rules authors expect a "default"
> support, even if the tool does not implement general global rules?

Good question.
I would expect yes otherwise it's still almost impossible for author to know how to markup their documents.

The key is probably that the rules are just a way to define the default behavior, not necessarily to implement it.


Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 15:23:32 UTC