- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 15:55:07 +0100
- To: Yves Savourel <yves@opentag.com>
- CC: www-international@w3.org
- Message-ID: <50F56DCB.8080203@w3.org>
Am 15.01.13 15:17, schrieb Yves Savourel: >>> We should be consistent: put either all mappings in >>> the specifications or in the BP document. >> Understand. So then rather do this normatively in the spec, >> and summarizing maybe in a section "existing HTML markup and ITS"? > Whether we do it in the specification or the BP, it would likely to be a normative change. That is, if we do in in a BP, text like "Applying the Id Value data category to xml:id (in XML) or id (in HTML) attributes in global rules is not necessary, since these attributes are the recommended way to specify an identifier." would need to be changed. > > What probably matter most in the long term is compliance: Do we want an ITS processor that supports Terminology for HTML to 'understand' <dfn> by default, or hope it does follow the BP? For ITS 1.0, we were happy with the latter, and created rules for mapping many other data categories to HTML http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-xml-i18n-bp-20080213/#relating-its-plus-xhtml We also cretated a mapping for "Terminology" - but interestingly not to "dfn", but to "dt" <its:termRule selector="//h:dt" term="yes"/> > > As a user I'd rather have processors I can count on to do the proper mapping by default. > > but, in the other hand, defining all rules for HTML5 is likely to be a bit challenging: > > - What about data categories like Elements Within Text? After all <b>, <u>, etc. should be mapped to withinText='yes'. > - Do we also define the translatable attributes? > - How do we address the thorny case of Preserve Space for <pre>? > - Is the content with <del> translatable or not? > - etc. > > This could get ugly and time consuming, and may be easier to handle in a BP for which time constraint is more flexible. I agree, see also as a backup the history in what is a term - for ITS 1.0 we mapped to "dt", now we are discussing "dfn". So I'd vote for a best practice and flexibility. At Richard (with regards to your other mail about the status of this discussion): sure, this will be discussed in the MLW-LT group too - they are aware of this thread and the i18n Wg will receive a "formal" answer too. For the time being we are trying to gather opinions on this and other comments, and everybody is happy to chime in. Best, Felix > > So I don't know... > > cheers, > -yves > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 14:55:37 UTC