This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
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".
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.
(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.
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.
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.