- From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:46:16 -0700
- To: "'Phil Archer'" <phil@philarcher.org>, "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>
- CC: <public-powderwg@w3.org>, <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>, "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@danbri.org>
Hi Phil, > ...I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is > temporarily at [2] as well I've looked at http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml There is a selector="//p:powder" where the prefix "p" is not mapped to any namespace URI. By the way, while looking a little below http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization I've notice that Example 3-1 had a <wdrs:describedby> element where "wdrs" was not decaled either. -ys > -----Original Message----- > From: public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-its-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil > Archer > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:35 AM > To: Felix Sasaki > Cc: public-powderwg@w3.org; public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org; Dan Brickley > Subject: Re: Comments on Nov-14 WD for ITS IG also Re: POWDER comments: multiple/alternate displaytext > strings? (eg. different languages/scripts) > > > Thanks Felix, > > I think I see a way forward then. As long we make it clear that any > linguistic processing is to be done independently of POWDER, and that > any ITS tags are lost in the transformation from POWDER to POWDER -S > (i.e. it's turned into RDF/OWL) then we should be OK. > > To this end I've added an extra couple of lines, visible temporarily at > [1]. I'd be grateful if you could check the ITS Rules file which is > temporarily at [2] as well (I've just edited the one Yves sent). > > OK? > > Cheers > > Phil. > > [1] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090204-diff.html#localization > [2] http://philarcher.org/powder/ITS_Rules/powder_itsrules.xml > > Felix Sasaki wrote: > > Hello Phil, all, > > > > Phil Archer さんは書きました: > >> > >> Yves, Dan, > >> > >> Over the last week or so I've been working through all the comments > >> we've received (again, double checking everything before we go to PR) > >> and looked again at those you sent [1, 2], both of which relate to > >> language/translation issues. I realised that there was more to do... > >> > >> Initial lack of support for xml:lang was an omission. I've now > >> implemented support for it in the relevant elements in the POWDER > >> Processor I've been working on [3] and it's already supported in the > >> other tools we have. > >> > >> For example [4] shows you the output of a processor given a POWDER doc > >> that makes it very plain that anything on example.com or example.org > >> is red in multiple languages. > >> > >> I've also amended the relevant documentation to make it clear that > >> xml:lang attributes are appropriate for use on the displaytext, > >> comment and label elements. See the change log at [5] for pointers to > >> the relevant text. > >> > >> Although xml:lang attributes may be added to tag elements, we don't > >> recommend it for the reasons shown in the new section on localisation. > >> > >> Regretfully, it does not appear to be possible to include the ITS tag > >> set. This is because although POWDER is encoded in XML, it transports > >> RDF and can be transformed into RDF/OWL. Therefore, although it looks > >> like XML, one really has to think of POWDER as RDF which interprets > >> XML attributes as datatype properties. This means that they can only > >> appear in node elements and things like its:translate do not have the > >> desired semantics within POWDER. > >> > >> Therefore, unless there is a way to use ITS with RDF, we can't > >> integrate it as Yves has suggested. > > > > The idea of ITS is to be available for localization and > > internationalization of XML formats. Some specifications, like Powder, > > define XML only as one serialization for their data model. That > > restricts the possibilities for ITS, but IMO it does not make them > > impossible. The important bit here is that ITS-processing is independent > > of Powder processing. As Yves said: > > "The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to > > localize or *preform* some linguistic-related tasks on the > > document. " > > So one could say "If a user needs to localize Powder documents, ITS > > provides a means to achieve this within the XML serialization of Powder". > > > > I agree that currently there is no way to use ITS within RDF on the data > > model, serialization-independent level of RDF, and that this would be > > desireable, though probably hard to achieve in a timely fashion. > > Nevertheless I am not aware of any other means to express localization > > requirements on the data model level of RDF. Hence, ITS would solve the > > problem at least for one serialization. > > > > Regards, > > > > Felix > > > >> > >> If you have any further comments, or if you disagree with our action > >> here, do please let us know. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Phil. > >> > >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Dec/0046.html > >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Jan/0020.html > >> [3] http://i-sieve.com/cgi-bin/processor.cgi > >> [4] http://tinyurl.com/c62tsn > >> [5] http://philarcher.org/powder/dr/20090203-diff.html#sincelc1 > >> > >> > >> Yves Savourel wrote: > >>> Hi Phil, > >>> > >>>> OK, now I'm being a little lazy - because I'm trying to expedite > >>>> this ASAP and I admit to only having seen the ITS doc for the first > >>>> time this afternoon. You've kindly sent us an ITS rules file - is > >>>> the idea that every POWDER doc should link to this? Or at least, > >>>> every POWDER doc that includes localised tags? Or should we embed > >>>> the rules in the schema? > >>> > >>> The idea is that the rules document is available to whoever needs to > >>> localize or preform some linguistic-related tasks on the > >>> document. > >>> > >>> It is certainly not necessary to have the rules in every document > >>> instance. > >>> Including them in the schema could be a good way to make sure it's > >>> readily accessible. > >>> Or it could be a separate document (with a link to it in the spec). > >>> From the view point of the ITS processor it doesn't really > >>> matter. > >>> > >>> -yves > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Phil Archer > w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 19:46:55 UTC