2619 2005-12-26 08:45:50 +0000 Complexity of precedence rules for "scope" (or "selectors") 2006-07-21 17:47:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified ITS ITS tagset WorkingDraft PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P2 normal LastCall20May 2620 1 fsasaki fsasaki public-i18n-its oldest_to_newest 7545 0 fsasaki 2005-12-26 08:45:50 +0000 Comment from Francois Richard, only entered into bugzilla by Felix: The precedence rules we define might be too complex for many tool developers. instead of precedence rule (or in addition), one could have a rule saying "use only dislocated" or "use only inline scope". 7573 1 ysavourel 2006-01-02 06:47:13 +0000 Using one could have a rule saying "use only dislocated" or "use only inline scope" would not really solve the issue: If a document has both notations the tool will *have to* handle both, otherwise it would not be able to cover what the document author wants. 7706 2 fsasaki 2006-01-08 04:42:05 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > Using one could have a rule saying "use only dislocated" or "use only inline > scope" would not really solve the issue: If a document has both notations the > tool will *have to* handle both, otherwise it would not be able to cover what > the document author wants. Maybe we should make the behavior of ITS processing clearer, writing s.t. like "first read the schema and look for ITS information, than the document (looking for dislocated, than the document (looking for in situ)." This is what the precedence order says anyway, but it might be useful to have it formulated different. 8305 3 fsasaki 2006-02-17 06:30:09 +0000 We group discussed this. The precedence rules have been simplified, as a reply to Bug 2620 (there are no selectors in situ (or "local", in the new terminology) anymore. We have not adopted the part of the proposal to have a rule saying "use only dislocated" or "use only inline scope". IMO (Felix), whether having such a rule makes sense, depends on the products we define and on their specific conformance criteria. 8397 4 fsasaki 2006-02-23 07:42:36 +0000 We decided not to continue discussion on this, see http://www.w3.org/2006/02/22-i18nits-minutes.html#action10 , and hope that you are satisfied with this resolution.