[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: DITA Subcommittee Agenda -- 10 April 2006
Hello All, Agenda for Monday 10 April 2006 11:00 am - 12:00 am Eastern Standard Team (-5 GMT) DITA Technical Committtee teleconference USA Toll Free Number: 866-566-4838 USA Toll Number: +1-210-280-1707 PASSCODE: 185771 Roll Call Approve Minutes from 3 April 2006 (enclosed for those who are not TC members) http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-translation/ This link goes to the subcommittee home page rather than directly to the minutes. Please link to the minutes yourselves. I have attached a Word document with the minutes. It also contains the full text of the April 3 proposals. The attached email contains the text of the xml:lang proposal submitted to the TC on April 4. In addition, I have attached Paul Prescod's statement of the behavior of conref in terms of the xml:lang. Please review to understand the proposed behavior of a conref-ed text. Action Items: Discussion of the dir attribute proposal (Gershon Joseph, Kevin Farwell, Richard Ischida) Use cases for the xml:lang attribute (submitted by JoAnn Hackos) Closed New Business 1) Gershon will review the current status of the xml:lang proposal based on the email discussions that have occurred since the TC approved the proposal last week. I believe that everyone has been copies on the emails, although some have circulated among TC members. Below are the links to last week's proposals. I hope everyone already has this information from last week's agenda. Continued discussion of dir during the week. Gershon will send everyone the latest copy of the xml:lang specification. 2)Discuss best practices for the dir attribute based on input from Gershon, Kevin, and Richard. 3) Begin a discussion of the best practices surrounding inline elements. I hope that Robert Anderson can start us off with a recommended course of action. JoAnn JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD President Comtech Services, Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80215 303-232-7586 joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com http://www.comtech-serv.com <http://www.comtech-serv.com/> Skype joannhackos
DITA SC Meeting Minutes - 3 April 2006.doc
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Gershon L Joseph" <gershon@tech-tav.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:09:26 -0600
Hi all, Here is the final xml:lang proposal, edited to remove references to Unicode. Best Regards, Gershon --- Gershon L Joseph Member, OASIS DITA and DocBook Technical Committees Director of Technology and Single Sourcing Tech-Tav Documentation Ltd. office: +972-8-974-1569 mobile: +972-57-314-1170 http://www.tech-tav.comTitle: Proposal for xml:lang Attribute--- End Message ---
Specifies the language (and optionally the locale) of the element content. The intent declared with xml:lang is considered to apply to all attributes and content of the element where it is specified, unless overridden with an instance of xml:lang on another element within that content. When no xml:lang value is supplied, the processor should assume a default value.
This attribute must be set to a language identifier, as defined by IETF RFC 3066 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt) or successor.
For a DITA document that contains a single language, the highest level element containing content should always set the xml:lang attribute to the language (and optionally the locale) that applies to the document. Since the dita element does not support the xml:lang element, the highest level element that should set the xml:lang attribute is the topic element (or derivatives at the same level).
For a DITA document that contains more than one language, the highest level element should always set the xml:lang attribute to the primary language (and optionally the locale) that applies to the document. Wherever an alternate language occurs in the document, the element containing the text or structure in the alternate language should set the xml:lang attribute appropriately. The above way of overriding the default document language applies to both block and inline elements that use the alternate language.
Using markup to identify language is strongly recommended to make the document as portable as possible. In addition, the marked-up document can be read and understood by humans. Finally, when updating the document, the boundaries of each language are clear, which makes it much easier for the author to update the document.
The xml:lang attribute can be specified on the map element. The expected language inheritance behavior on the map is similar to that on the topic. That is, the primary language for the map should be set on the map element (or assumed by the application if not explicitly set), and should remain in effect for all children unless a child specifies a different value for xml:lang.
In the case of a contradiction between the xml:lang value set on the map and the xml:lang value set on the topic, the setting on the topic overrides.
Technical manuals frequently contain entire topics that are in languages different from the primary source languages of most of the topics. A manual in English, for example, may contain warnings that are in multiple languages, or have multiple topics of warnings each in individual languages. A manual may also contain regulatory notices as individual topics in different languages.
Therefore, a map might reference topics that are written in more than one language. In this case, each topic (or section within the topic) would use the xml:lang attribute to specify the language of the topic or section. Processors identify the language of each topic or section by the xml:lang attribute set in the topic file. However, it may be useful to specify the xml:lang attribute at the map level (on topicref elements) to help identify the language of each topic the map refers to.
The recommended practice is to identify every change in language via XML markup. When reading XML markup that embeds scripts of different languages, the embedded languages should be indicated via markup when the document is saved.
Applications should ensure every highest level topic element and the root map element explicitly assign the xml:lang attribute.
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>
- To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:50:51 -0600
I thought I would help Michael out. ;) ===== Definition: Post DITA-Processing Infoset (PDPI) A Post-DITA Processing Infoset is an infoset that results from the application of DITA conref, conditional processing and metadata rules to a map or topic. Definition: Post DITA-Conref Element (PDCE) A Post DITA-Conref Element is an element infoset item derived from an XML element information item("the originating element") in an input document information item. Definition: Language Property An DITA processor should augment the originating infoset and the PDPI by adding the language property to each element information item. The value of this property is the normalized value of the xml:lang attribute appearing on that element if one exists, with xml:lang="" resulting in no value, otherwise it is the value of the language property of the element's parent element if one exists, otherwise the property has no value. (this is ripped off from http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#language) Rule: Language of PDCEs The language property associated with a PDCE infoset item is the same as the language property that is associated with the originating element in the input document. The original language property is assigned according to normal XML rules. If the origin has no language property then the language property should be set to the empty string. In the vernacular, this means that a conref processor must copy the xml:lang attribute attached to a referent element or to its most direct ancestor containing an xml:lang attribute. If there is no such attribute then the processor should copy the empty string. ===== As a purely philosophical point, we define the mapping from originating elements to PDCEs and can do whatever we want in that transformation. In addition, I notice that the idea of scoping xml:lang elements is not defined in either XML or the infoset proposal. Paul Prescod--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]