Re: Next last call publication & question on todays meeting

Agreed, lets continue talking on the action-527 thread

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 2:51 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:

>  Am 16.05.13 15:16, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
>
> Thanks, Felix,
> inline
>
>  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 12:32 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>  Am 16.05.13 11:56, schrieb Dr. David Filip:
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16.5.2013 10:59, Dr. David Filip wrote:
>>>
>>> > It should aslo say
>>> > that the extensions MUST not provide features provided by the ITS core
>>> > elements attributes. I understand that we can hardly build test cases
>>> for
>>> > this MUST, but it is important to stress.
>>>
>>>  There is no reason for specifying this. ITS is used in host languages
>>> and they are already providing their own means for some data categories
>>> (usually lang, dir, translate).
>>>
>> Of course they do, so you need global rules for an ITS processor to
>> recognize them as such.
>> Enforcing is not just about testing. If someone introduces a global rule
>> using an extended element, it is against the spirit of the standard to let
>> this overlap with any ITS feature. If you do not use normative language to
>> say so in the spec, you have later on no base for saying that such use of
>> extensibility is not conformant...
>>
>>>
>>> Anyway you can enforce such rule in practice so it doesn't make sense to
>>> introduce it.
>>>
>>> >> ITS is kind enough to allow other namespaces, the ITS processors can
>>> >> simply ignore them, and that’s the end of the story.
>>> >>
>>> > In order to make the schema changes, the spec must unequivocally say
>>> where
>>> > those extended elements and attributes are allowed. It is anarchy and
>>> not a
>>> > standard otherwise.
>>>
>>>  This is now described in RELAX NG schema -- its20.rnc. Basically foreign
>>> elements can be used only inside its:rules. Foreign attributes can be
>>> used on any element defined in ITS.
>>>
>> I agree with the solution materially, all I say is that this must also
>> occur in prose descriptions of the elements.
>>
>>
>>  Thank you for stating your agreement, David. To make sure I understand
>> and for the record: you agree with the schema change Jirka made, see also
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt-commits/2013May/0044.html
>> [foreign
>>
>> elements can be used only inside its:rules. Foreign attributes can be
>>  used on any element defined in ITS.]
>>
>> ?
>>
> Again, I do agree with the change materially and the schema change is OK
> with me
>
>>
>> Wrt to the spec change: having the text in prose description for all
>> elements doesn't sound feasible.
>>
> If we do not list it for every element than appendix D and schema will be
> in conflict with the rest of the prose specification.
>
>
> Well, we can also put it on the beginning of
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#datacategory-description
> and say "This statement relates to all elements defined in this
> specification". In that way it "inherits" to all definitions. Is there a
> problem with this?
>
>
>  *The element descriptions are ENUMERATIVE in the main body of the spec.
> Therefore the spec is currently in conflict with the schema!*
> I put the example and into reply to Yves..
>
>
>>  How about adding what you agreed to
>> "Foreign elements can be used only inside its:rules. Foreign attributes
>> can be
>>
>> used on any element defined in ITS."
>>
>>  To
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html#its-schemas
>>
>> ?
>>
>>  As I said in response to Yves, it is good to have the blanket statement
> in appendix D.
> Can zou confirm that Appendix D is nornmative?
> Shouldn't it be introduced with the italics text.
> *This section is normative*
>
>
> I did, see
> http://www.w3.org/International/multilingualweb/lt/drafts/its20/its20.html
>
> How about ending this thread and just continuing the action-527 thread, to
> keep things together?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>  Just to be sure..
>
>
>>  Best,
>>
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>                         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 15:26:30 UTC