W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 10:19:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CANw5LK=T2K48StF2XE_JKZeAqj8yWDzEyfHZ4Cv4A1PMWLHiPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Cc: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Thanks Jirko, inline again

Dr. David Filip
=======================
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
telephone: +353-6120-2781
*cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
facsimile: +353-6120-2734
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie


On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:

> On 16.5.2013 10:49, Dr. David Filip wrote:
>
> >> Spec is just being aligned with common usage. As people introduced their
> >> own rule elements and no one was surprised about this it was just spec
> >> which wasn't properly document this shared view of possible extensions.
> >>
> >
> > I do not say it is unnatural,  it explicitly introduces a full blown
> > extensibility mechanism. It is normative because the schema would
> > invalidate before stuff with such extensions.
>
> Please note that as ITS is usually used only in host languages not
> purely itself, schemas are merely just building blocks. For example
> current schema its20.nvdl allows extension elements to appear inside
> its:rules -- schema just accepts any non-ITS element anywhere.
>
I am aware that our schema is just building blocks for decorating other
syntaxes. But we are in control of our few elements..

>
> > I believe it has potential to become controversial if left for the second
> > last call. I believe that it should be properly resolved before the
> second
> > last call is made.
>
> I will push schema chage within minutes,

I know that changing the schema is not an issue

> Yves proposed simple sentence
> describing extensions processing. Do you think that we need something
> more for proper resolution?
>
I believe that the extension points within our "blocks" should be described
in the prose specification. Should not be a big issue.

>
>                                 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 rep.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Bringing you XML Prague conference    http://xmlprague.cz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 09:20:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:32:09 UTC