Re: [xml-dev] Transformation of RelaxNG syntax into presentationof requi

[Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>]

Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>> ISO DSRL allows renaming of element names and attributes (and 
>> enumerations) to allow localized versions of XML documents.  I don't 
>> see how China's UOF could become an international standard (which is 
>> being suggested) without that.
> DSRL is nothing but unique renaming, which is a bijective map.  It's 
> good that it is narrowly focused (on schemas), but unfortunately I 
> think the role it seeks to perform could also be done at XML level, at 
> which level the circle of users it could benefit would be larger.  
> Perhaps down the line someone somewhere might come up with yet another 
> standard for  XML renaming.
Actually, the current implementation works by renaming the instance, not 
the schema. The same DSRL script could be used to rename schemas, but I 
don't know that anyone has done this.
> Also, since you switch gear to UOF, why not UOF?  Isn't that too 
> presumptuous to  rule it out based on just an observation alone?
I don't have any objection to UOF becoming an international standard, as 
far as its technology goes. In fact, I have long been promoting 
awareness that Chinese, Japanese, Korean documents have special needs 
beyond what the current ODF/OOXML/HTML document types provide: for 
example, just yesterday I had a blog item "What are Chinese Tables" 
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/10/what-are-chinese-tables.html. And I 
have bought up Chinese issues with a couple of members of the ODF TC 
individually. 

There is an idea floating from certain ODF-ers around that UOF exists 
because of what are called "political reasons". I think it is more than 
that: UOF meets certain objective Chinese technical requirements. I hope 
these can be added to ODF (and to OOXML too). But getting an awareness 
of these issues is the first step.  Sun's Scott McNealy called for a 
merger of ODF and UOF, so there is certainly good talk; Novel (IIRC) 
have added grid layout support to OpenOffice, so there is some action 
there, but not much.

So I would reverse the question: rather than saying "UOF exists because 
of politicial reasons" (or unco-operativeness) perhaps we should ask 
"Why hasn't there been effective Chinese involvement in the ODF process 
in its core formative days?"  Part of the reason must be language. (And 
there are many others, opportunities, contacts, scheduling, perceived 
benefit).

But who would use a format in simplified Chinese?  The PRC. Singapore 
also uses simplified characters, but it is multilingual, and you would 
expect English-language names to be more practical.  Taiwan treasures 
its use of traditional characters somewhat, so I expect there would be 
mixed feelings about UOF. HK: who knows?   So a standard that is only 
usable by PRC mainland, HK and Taiwan will have problems getting 
positive votes from other National Bodies: consider that OOXML only got 
in because of its market dominance, overcoming the general desire not to 
multiply standards. 

That is why I think we need to build DSRL in at a fundamental level for 
international standards.

Usually, I would say it would be more realistic to expect that UOF's 
Chinese requirements would get added to ODF. However, the plans for ODF 
1.3 (or ODF 2.0) have not been made yet, so that could well be 4 or 5 
years in the future. 

Until then, I think it would be very productive for a translation of UOF 
to made into an ISO Technical Report: this is less than a standard (and 
could lead the way to becoming an international standard), it gets the 
information out there, will be less contentious than a full standards 
process, and can be done fairly quickly. I think that would be really 
useful: there is almost no material on UOF in English. I am told a lot 
of it is based on an early fork of ODF, so probably  much of the ODF 
material could be re-used, which might help translators!

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe