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] Final xml:lang proposal


It's also useful to have that language for people who do not know the XML
Spec, or are not very familiar with xml:lang. The question of how to treat
this came up in the Translation Subcommittee, which means that it is not
obvious for everybody in that group, much less to the world at large.

Would it help if we took out the word "contradiction"? So, something like
"In the case where the xml:lang value on a topicref does not match the
xml:lang value on a topic, the value on the topic takes precedence." We
could also add a sentence to the effect that this follows the defined
behavior for xml:lang, if that helps.

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787


                                                                           
             Michael Priestley                                             
             <mpriestl@ca.ibm.                                             
             com>                                                       To 
                                       "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>    
             04/04/2006 12:44                                           cc 
             PM                        dita@lists.oasis-open.org           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [dita] Final xml:lang proposal  
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





re:
>There is no contradiction.  We've already said that
>xml:lang inherits in the usual sense and more local
>settings take precedence over settings higher up
>(and we didn't even have to say that, since that is
>the only way xml:lang can work per the XML spec).

Existing documented behavior for metadata in maps is that it adds to or
overrides metadata in the referenced topics. Maps are effectively closest
to the deliverable, and thus are more likely to be accurate about things
like audience, platform, publisher, etc. But xml:lang is acting in the
exact opposite way, which makes sense, but I would think is worthy of
comment.  I don't know of any other standards that involve the
pushing/pulling of metadata in the way maps do and (separately) conref do,
so I'd be surprised if the xml:lang spec says something explicit about it.

Even if the xml:lang spec does accurately and completely cover this
behavior, I still think it's worth calling out explicitly in our spec,
since it is (deliberately) not consistent with the behavior of other
attributes. We would at least want to update the spec to say something like
"metadata in maps overrides metadata in topics when there is a conflict,
except for xml:lang, where the metadata on the topic wins".

Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

                                                                           
 "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>                                          
                                                                           
                                                                           
 04/04/2006 01:31 PM                                                    To 
                                                    <dita@lists.oasis-open 
                                                    .org>                  
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                                    RE: [dita] Final       
                                                    xml:lang proposal      
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





While I believe we're all trying to say pretty much
the same thing, I'd like to delete the paragraph:

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.

There is no contradiction.  We've already said that
xml:lang inherits in the usual sense and more local
settings take precedence over settings higher up
(and we didn't even have to say that, since that is
the only way xml:lang can work per the XML spec).

This gratuitous paragraph makes it sound like there
could be a "contradiction" and that we might be
suggesting some behavior for xml:lang other than
the XML-spec-defined behavior.  There can't be
(a contradiction) and we aren't (specifying some
other behavior), so we should just delete these words.

Also, I'm not sure about the wording:

When reading XML markup that embeds scripts of different
languages, the embedded languages ....

I don't think scripts can be in an XML document.  An
XML document consists of characters (and markup).  Besides,
the first half of the sentence talks about embedded scripts,
and the second have says embedded languages.  Also, it doesn't
seem to make sense to "When reading...when the document is
saved."

I think we mean to say:

When an XML document contains strings of characters from
different languages, those strings should be indicated
via markup.

but I could be wrong.  In particular, I'm not sure if we're
trying to say that editor tools should convert any use of
the Unicode direction-switching characters into markup.

paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gershon L Joseph [mailto:gershon@tech-tav.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 April 04 12:09
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [dita] Final xml:lang proposal
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is the final xml:lang proposal, edited to remove
> references to Unicode.




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