RE: [Bulk] Re: [dita] Proposed changes to the xml:lang proposal

["Gershon L Joseph" <gershon@tech-tav.com>]

Hi Bob,

My understanding is that the TC agreed to update the conref documentation,
not the xml:lang documentation, so this does not apply to the xml:lang
proposal. However, I don't see any harm in adding a statement in the
xml:lang proposal about how it should be applied to conrefs.

I received private messages about the language of your proposed addition.
Members feel it's written for XML developers and won't be understood by most
people who read the spec. I'll discuss your email with the Translation
Subcommittee today and if they agree we should add something, we'll try to
refine your proposed addition. 


Best Regards,
Gershon

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Stayton [mailto:bobs@sagehill.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 2:23 AM
To: gershon@tech-tav.com; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Bulk] Re: [dita] Proposed changes to the xml:lang proposal

And what about Paul's message regarding conref and xml:lang:

http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200604/msg00018.html

I think another sentence should describe the specification of conref and
xml:lang.  Something like:

"In the case of conref, the xml:lang of the transcluded content is that
attached to a referent element or to its most direct ancestor containing an
xml:lang in the referent document. If there is no such attribute then the
xml:lang is taken from the conref element or its most recent ancestor with
an xml:lang attribute."

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
bobs@sagehill.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gershon L Joseph" <gershon@tech-tav.com>
To: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: [dita] Proposed changes to the xml:lang proposal


> Hi all,
>
> In order to tighten up some of the language in the proposal and 
> address
> concerns raised via email since last week's TC meeting, I'd 
> like to
> summarize the issues and suggest actions (or otherwise) for 
> each item:
>
> 1. Removal of mention of contradictions between map and topic:
> "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."
> Based on responses on the list from Michael and Robert, as well 
> as the
> universal feeling of the SC members, this should not be 
> changed. However,
> Robert proposed a better phrasing for this which Paul G is OK 
> with, so I
> think we should change the above sentence to:
> "If the xml:lang value on a topicref does not match the 
> xml:lang value on a
> topic, the value on the topic takes precedence."
>
> 2. "When reading XML markup that embeds scripts of different 
> languages, the
> embedded languages should be indicated via markup when the 
> document is
> saved." This sentence is still confusing, and should be 
> rewritten as
> follows:
> "When an application writes (saves) a document that contains 
> strings of
> characters from different languages, the strings of each 
> language should be
> indicated via markup."
> Thanks Paul G for pointing this one out. I changed your 
> suggested text a
> little.
>
> Are you all OK with these changes? If no-one objects, I'll go 
> ahead and make
> these changes to the final proposal.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>