OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Translation SC proposals for xml:lang and dir attributes


Hi Gershon,

1. After the following sentence in the xml:lang proposal

> Applications that process DITA documents, whether at the authoring, translation, publishing, or any other stage, should fully support the Unicode algorithm to correctly implement the script for each language used in the document. 

Should we cross-reference the dir proposal?

"However, when implementing the language specification features of the Unicode algorithm, see also the discussion of the dir attribute, where it is stated that the use of the dir attribute is preferred rather than use of the special embedded Unicode LTR, RTL, LRO, and RLO characters."

2. With regard to the following disclaimer in the dir proposal

> Because input is unpredictably dependent on eventual output, it is not sufficient to apply the "dir" attribute in such a way as to make the XML appear as it should in an editor.

Are there any provisions to ensure that users will have fall-back methods in case the use of the dir attribute is not sufficient to achieve proper processing?

Is the fall-back method to request an upgrade of a processing engine or browser or other presentation system? Is it intended that using the Unicode LTR, RTL, LRO, and RLO characters will not be supported as a workaround? This seems to be the effect of the note to vendors/implementers.

> When reading XML markup that embeds the Unicode Bidirectional markers, these markers should be replaced with markup when the document is saved.

Would it make sense to permit in the specification that vendors/implementers may make it possible for authors to explicitly request that the Unicode LTR, RTL, LRO, and RLO characters are preserved in violation of the recommended practice? This would be allowed in tools whose output is provided to applications that do not comply. But a tool would still be out of compliance with the specification if its output fails to comply with the specification when the user saves a document without requesting a violation of the recommended practice.

Best wishes,

Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:gershon@tech-tav.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 9:30 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Translation SC proposals for xml:lang and dir attributes


Hi all,

Today the Translation subcommittee finalized our proposals for the xml:lang
and dir attributes for inclusion in DITA 1.1. Please review these proposals
for discussion and approval during tomorrow's TC meeting.

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.com


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]