This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
From MemoQ devlopers feedback: Issue #1: "...following the inheritance of the rules can be difficult." Comment for Yves: "I'm not sure how more explicit we could explain the rules. But maybe this refers to the difficulty to implement the inheritence rules rather than to understand them." Comment from Sebastian: "Yes, following the inheritance of the rules can be difficult. The alternative, of tagging every element, is surely unacceptable? I would suggest that for some people a two-stage approach, with pass 1 being to resolve inheritance, and pass 1 being to do the work, may make the task more manageable." Comment from Felix: "I agree. Note that currently the draft is written in a "declarative way": We define the different properties of ITS (selection, adding / pointing, inherithance / precedence) . There is no description of the "procedures" how to process ITS information. I would not rewrite the spec, but having such a "process oriented" description in addition to the declarative current one might be helpful."
Added István Lengyel to the CC list.
(In reply to comment #0) [snip] > > Comment from Felix: > "I agree. Note that currently the draft is written in a "declarative way": We > define the different properties of ITS (selection, adding / pointing, > inherithance / precedence) . There is no description of the "procedures" how to > process ITS information. I would not rewrite the spec, but having such a > "process oriented" description in addition to the declarative current one might > be helpful." To make my own comment clear: I stated that a "process oriented" description might be helpful, but I don't propose to have it. I propose to close this bug as it is, without any change. The same for bug http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3361 .
Action: working group to discuss and reply.
Proposed answer: The WG agrees that following inheritence of the rules is not always easy to either understand or implement, but the alternative to inheritence would be to mark every element which is not possible. The specification will be updated to have a more explicit table in section 6.1, which may help understanding the innheritence better. As for the implementation: The WG has been developping different test ITS processors that illustrate how the inheritence can be implemented.
Closed.
Summary: The Working Group decided not to modify the rules for inheritance.
The answer that the WG updates the specification to have a more explicit table in Section 6.1 and creates test ITS processors to demonstrate implementation is absolutely acceptable.
Closed. Commentor satisfied.