3057 2006-03-29 06:09:48 +0000 Proposal for grouping rules 2006-07-24 10:34:05 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified ITS ITS tagset WorkingDraft PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 fsasaki fsasaki fsasaki oldest_to_newest 8937 0 fsasaki 2006-03-29 06:09:48 +0000 See http://www.w3.org/2006/03/15-i18nits-minutes.html#grouping-proposal . 8938 1 christian.lieske 2006-03-29 06:26:43 +0000 From my understanding, we did not really discuss "grouping rules". Rather, we were wondering how we could succinctly give information which pertains to more than one data category. Example: Say that all "t" elements should not be translated, and are "term" elements in the ITS sense. 8939 2 fsasaki 2006-03-29 06:46:04 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > From my understanding, we did not really discuss "grouping rules". Rather, we > were wondering how we could succinctly give information which pertains to more > than one data category. > > Example: > > Say that all "t" elements should not be translated, and are "term" elements in > the ITS sense. > Do you have a proposal on how to reword what is currently in this bug and in sec. http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset-diff-20060222.html#selection-global (see ed. note)? 8940 3 sebastian.rahtz 2006-03-29 08:11:56 +0000 Achieveing succinctness of rules by allowing grouping does not seem to me to be a very high priority. Can't this wait for version 2? the downside of a simple procedure is that if you say <ruleGrp selector="//term"> <translateRule translate="yes"/> <termRule term="yes"/> </ruleGrp> you have to make @selector on <translate> optional, which weakens the validation. But if that isnt a bother, then the syntax above would work, and be pretty easy to implement. 8941 4 fsasaki 2006-03-29 08:26:55 +0000 (In reply to comment #3) > Achieveing succinctness of rules by allowing grouping does not seem to me to be > a very high priority. Can't this wait for version 2? would be fine with me :) . Anyway, we have now only "asking for feedback" in the draft. > the downside of a simple > procedure is that if you say > > <ruleGrp selector="//term"> > <translateRule translate="yes"/> > <termRule term="yes"/> > </ruleGrp> > > you have to make @selector on <translate> optional, which > weakens the validation. But if that isnt a bother, it would bother me, since it means that for an edge (possibly "2.0" case) one would add complexity / the drawback of weakened validation to the core case. /me always bringing the same arguments ... > then the > syntax above would work, and be pretty easy to implement. > 9340 5 fsasaki 2006-04-20 08:21:46 +0000 closed after discussion at http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-i18nits-minutes.html#item08 , waiting for feedback from outside 10681 6 fsasaki 2006-07-24 10:34:05 +0000 Closed, no further action necessary.