W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Comment on ITS 2.0 specification WD, i18n-ISSUE-212: HTML5 in the ITS spec

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:48:44 +0200
Message-ID: <517D36CC.4060108@w3.org>
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
CC: public-multilingualweb-lt-comments@w3.org, www International <www-international@w3.org>
Hi Richard, all,

the MLW-LT WG agrees with your comment. For more info, see below.

Am 16.01.13 20:42, schrieb Richard Ishida:
> There was a thread on www-international 
> [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0044.html] 
> sparked by a comment about the relationship of its:term to dfn in 
> HTML5 which can be widened to a more general discussion, ie. should 
> the ITS spec fully describe the relationship between other elements 
> and and attributes in HTML5 that relate to the data categories in ITS 
> (see Yves' comments at 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-international/2013JanMar/0044.html]
> In discussing this with Felix during the i18n WG telecon, we concluded 
> that ITS is trying to normatively specify relationships between HTML5 
> markup and ITS data categories only where a normative and complete 
> relationship is tenable, ie. lang and translate attributes in HTML5 
> are examples where the markup is fully consistent with ITS data 
> categories and cannot be used in other ways, so a normative link can 
> be established.
> Not all HTML5 markup can be linked to ITS so completely. For example, 
> its:term could be represented in HTML5 by dfn element, or by a dt 
> element, but either of those elements could also be used for another 
> purpose. HTML5 markup that can't be associated uniquely with ITS data 
> categories in this way will be described in the Best Practices document.
> If this is what the ITS group intends, then I think the ITS 
> specification needs significant editorial work to make this clearer.

We wrote a dedicated section explaining the relation between ITS and 
This section should clarify everything you mentioned.

> For example, section 1.1.1 Relation to ITS 1.0 says "While ITS 1.0 
> addressed only XML, ITS 2.0 specifies implementations of data 
> categories in both XML and HTML". And 1.1.2 New Principles says: "ITS 
> 2.0 data categories are intended to be format neutral, with support 
> for XML, HTML, and NIF: a data category implementation only needs to 
> support a single content format mapping in order to support a claim of 
> ITS 2.0 conformance". And 1.4 Usage in HTML says "ITS 2.0 adds support 
> for usage in HTML." These statements give the impression that ITS will 
> fully describe the relationships between ITS and HTML5 in the spec.
> I think it will also help to clarify, where examples related to HTML5 
> appear (for example, Example 44 in the section on Terminology), that 
> these only illustrate some of the ways in which some of the markup in 
> HTML could be mapped to ITS, and do not relate to normative behaviour, 
> and they are not exhaustive.

For these aspects, see esp. the subsection

Does this reply to your concerns? Please let us know within 2 weeks 
whether you are OK with this response.


Received on Sunday, 28 April 2013 14:49:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:41:02 UTC