Re: [ACTION-527]: Propose spec change to address extensibility in general

Inline:

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

>  Am 16.05.13 15:00, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi David, all,
>>
>> > [[
>> > 2-5: Non-ITS elements or attributes found in a rules element MAY be
>> ignored.
>> > ]]
>>  > ...
>> > Besides we allowed foreign attributes in all elements, so this
>> > should say that non-ITS elements or attributes in all ITS elements MAY
>> be ignored.
>>
>>  Actually the schema change allows foreign elements only in its:rules.
>> But in any case, for this statement, there is no reason to mention where
>> the non-ITS elements/attributes can be found: It's just about what to do
>> with them. So we should use a blanket statement:
>>
>> [[
>> 2-5: Non-ITS elements and attributes MAY be ignored.
>> ]]
>>
>> or
>>
>> [[
>> 2-5: Non-ITS elements and attributes found in ITS elements MAY be ignored.
>> ]]
>>
>>  I like this one
>
>
> OK, so we have now three changes that you agreed upon:
> - schema change that Jirka committed
> - 2-5 above
> - the text in appendix D "Foreign elements can be used only inside rules.
> Foreign attributes can be used on any element defined in ITS."
>
>
>
>
>
>> And the locations where non-ITS elements/attributes are allowed can be
>> described in
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-schemasas Felix proposed.
>>
>> [[
>> Foreign elements can be used only inside rules.
>> Foreign attributes can be used on any element defined in ITS.
>> ]]
>>
>>  It is good to have this text in appendix D but not sufficient IMHO
>
>  I understand that making a general blanket statements on one place is
> convenient when writing, but is not consumption friendly.
> The elements are specified throughout all categories and people who read
> only on the categories they are interested in, are likely to miss the
> extensibility.
>
>  An important question
>  Is appendix D normative?
>
>
> Yes - see the TOC
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html
> all other appendicies say "non-normative".
>
>
>   I am not sure (it is not marked non-normative but it also does not
> explicitly say that it is normative, as we do elsewhere in the spec like
> this:
> *This section is normative.*
>
>
>  On the assumption that the appendix D is normative (perhaps we should
> add *This section is normative.*)
>
>
> Done for all normative appendices a-d.
>

Perfect

>
>
>  , I am happy to keep the requirement for specifying extensibility on
> every element for the second last call, because then it will be indeed
> editorial only. provided we have the NORMATIVE appendix D blanket statement.
>
>
> We have that now.
>
>
>
>  This is an example to make sure that we are on the same page:
>
>  [This is the current text]
>
> GLOBAL: The termRule element contains the following:
>
>    -
>
>    A required selector attribute. It contains an absolute selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> which
>    selects the nodes to which this rule applies.
>     -
>
>    A required term attribute with the value "yes" or "no".
>     -
>
>    None or exactly one of the following:
>     -
>
>       A termInfoPointer attribute that contains a relative selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> pointing
>       to a node that holds the terminology information.
>        -
>
>       A termInfoRef attribute that contains an IRI referring to the
>       resource providing information about the term.
>        -
>
>       A termInfoRefPointer attribute that contains a relative selector<http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#selectors> pointing
>       to a node that holds the IRI referring to the location of the terminology
>       information.
>
>
>  [This is the addition I require]
>
>
>    - None, one or more attributes from any namespace.
>
>
>
> I disagree with adding the same text to all sections. It makes the spec
> longer, nothing else. Anyway, you said that "I am happy to keep the
> requirement for specifying extensibility on every element for the second
> last call". Could you confirm that the current state resolves this issue?
> Note that "2-5: Non-ITS elements and attributes found in ITS elements MAY
> be ignored." is not in the spec yet, but once you agree I add it. Others,
> if you disagree with adding it please shout.
>
*As I explained in the other response, this list is ENUMERATIV and in main
part of the normative prose text. So the spec is currently in conflict with
the schema and appendix D.*
*It is not optional to specify or not extensibility in an enumerativ list,.*
*If it is not there it simply means it is not allowed.*
*
*
Sloppy as it is, I can wait with bringing the elements up to date as an
editorial CORRECTION in the second last call, if it seems such a big issue
to introduce now.
*
*

>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>
>
>
>  Section 5.2.1 should also contain the provision for elements and
> attributes from any namespace within <its:rules>
>
>
>
>> -ys
>>
>>
>>
>
>