[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] 17.5 on IRIs
Hi, I prefer the version 2 of Patrick's proposed text. When I was translating ISO/IEC26.300 to Brazilian Portuguese, I've spent almost a week to find the best way to translate this particular sentence to Portuguese. I think that this proposal number 2 will be easily translated and explicit everything that we need to say. Best, Jomar Patrick Durusau escreveu: > Greetings, > > To continue the discussion from the call this morning, I would call > everyone's attention to a prior suggestion by Michael (I overlooked > this): > >> *Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does* not >> > need any special processing. This especially means that absolute-paths >> > do not reference files inside the package, but within the hierarchy >> the >> > package is contained in, for instance the file system. IRI references >> > inside a package may leave the package, but once they have left the >> > package, they never can return into the package or another one. > Note that we still have: > > "but within the hierarchy the package is contained in, for instance > the file system." > > which doesn't make sense, or at least not at first. > > To some degree guessing on my part but I think the language of both > the first and second sentence were meant to be talking about IRIs that > are not relative paths. > > Thus: > > First sentence: wants to say: No special rules for non-relative path > references. (ok by me) > > Second sentence wants to say: Repeats about absolute paths don't > reference files in the package (repetition but ok) *and* that absolute > path IRI can reference packages, for example in a file system. > > In other words, the second part of the second sentence was simply an > *observation* about the capacity of an absolute path IRI. > > Third sentence wants to say: IRI can point to something outside the > package (ok) but once it leaves it can't come back. ??? > > Well, but IRIs only point to one location and since we don't have link > hubs (XLink feature) there is no known mechanism for a single IRI to > point outside of a package and then back into a package. Noting that > we have already said that absolute IRI can't point into a package. > > OK, having gone the long way around (apologies but I wanted it to be > clear that remarks from others and not any cleverness on my part has > resulted in the following) here is what I would propose to "fix" the > paragraph in question: > > **** > Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not > need any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files > inside a package, but may, for instance, address packages that are > held in a file hierarchy. IRI references inside a package may address > anything addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no > IRI outside of a package may address any location within any package. > **** > > A bit wordy for me and I would suggest further edits on the second > sentence, now that I suspect we know what was meant and to replace the > paragraph with: > > **** > Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not > need any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files > inside a package. IRI references inside a package may address anything > addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no IRI outside > of a package may address any location within any package > **** > > The second half of the third sentence strikes me as redundant with the > second sentence. So, my personal preference would be: > > **** > Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not > need any special processing. An absolute-path IRI can not reference > files inside a package. IRI references inside a package may address > anything addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package. > **** > > Note that I started to say "that is outside of *the* package" to make > reference to the package containing the IRI but that would be wrong > because we don't want absolute IRIs addressing files in *any* package. > > Hope everyone is having a great day! > > Patrick >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]