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.

(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)? 

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.

(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.
> 

closed after discussion at http://www.w3.org/2006/04/18-i18nits-minutes.html#item08 , waiting for feedback from outside

Closed, no further action necessary.