Re: Question on "phrasing content" definition

I meant to say: ignore, i.e. "within-text=nested" for <script> and the
text within <script> doesn't even get classified as translatable text,
since it's code and not text to be translated.

Silvia.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> Am 15.05.13 09:26, schrieb Silvia Pfeiffer:
>
> Wouldn't you want to Igor script for your purposes anyway no matter where it
> appears?
>
>
> I agree, that is to say on the ITS 2.0 side: default "within-text=yes" is
> for
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/dom.html#phrasing-content-1
> plus "script" independent of position. MLW-LT folks, what do you think?
>
> - Felix
>
>
> Silvia.
>
> On 15 May 2013 16:54, "Felix Sasaki" <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Just to give some background for Silvia / the HTML WG about this topic.
>>
>> In ITS 2.0 "Elements Within Text" information
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#elements-within-text
>> helps to identify nesting properties of text sequences. This is needed
>> e.g. for triggering segmentation during extraction of text, as a preparation
>> for translation / localization: in
>> <p>This is a <span>test</span></p>
>> a translator doesn't want to see the content of e.g. "span" separately
>> extracted from a "p". So "span" is "within-text=yes", and "p" is
>> "within-text=no".
>>
>> In ITS 2.0 we want to align with HTML5 as much as possible with regards to
>> defaults for "within text". For the defaults we refer to
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/dom.html#phrasing-content-1
>> saying in ITS 2.0 "what is listed here is equal to ITS within-text=yes".
>> In this way, content authors don't have to set a lot of "within-text"
>> information explicitly.
>>
>> Refering to
>> phrasing content
>> works in 99% (e.g. for "span", "em", ...) - but "script" raised the
>> question that created this thread: "script" is part of phrasing content in
>> "body", but "script" can also appear in the head. With what this thread
>> looks like currently, we would assume that "script" would only be seen as by
>> default "within-text=yes" when it appears in the body. (Note that one can
>> always override these defaults with explicit metadata, btw.).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>> Am 15.05.13 08:00, schrieb Mārcis Pinnis:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> So we can assume that the HTML5 Defaults for ITS 2.0 Elements Within Text
>>> do not affect the head element, right?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Mārcis ;o)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:51 AM
>>> To: Felix Sasaki
>>> Cc: public-html@w3.org; public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Question on "phrasing content" definition
>>>
>>> Hi Felix,
>>>
>>> the definition of <head> is here:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/document-metadata.html#the-head-element
>>>
>>> It says for its content model:
>>> If the document is an iframe srcdoc document or if title information is
>>> available from a higher-level protocol: Zero or more elements of metadata
>>> content.
>>> Otherwise: One or more elements of metadata content, of which exactly one
>>> is a title element.
>>>
>>> So, the content model is metadata content, which is specified here:
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/dom.html#metadata-content
>>>
>>> So, no, <head> elements don't hve phrasing content.
>>>
>>> HTH.
>>> Silvia.
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if anybody from the HTML WG saw this or whether a different
>>>> forum for this question would be better ... anyway, any advice would
>>>> be highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Felix
>>>>
>>>> Am 08.05.13 15:33, schrieb Felix Sasaki:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> a question on
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/dom.html#phrasing-content-1
>>>>>
>>>>> does this definition also encompass the content of the "head"
>>>>> element, e.g. "script" inside "head"? That is, is content of <head>
>>>>> part of intra-paragraph?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Felix
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 09:08:15 UTC