Hi,
I prefer the version 2 of Patrick's proposed text.
When I was translating ISO/IEC26.300 to Brazilian Portuguese, I've spent
almost a week to find the best way to translate this particular sentence
to Portuguese. I think that this proposal number 2 will be easily
translated and explicit everything that we need to say.
Best,
Jomar
Patrick Durusau escreveu:
> Greetings,
>
> To continue the discussion from the call this morning, I would call
> everyone's attention to a prior suggestion by Michael (I overlooked
> this):
>
>> *Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does* not
>> > need any special processing. This especially means that absolute-paths
>> > do not reference files inside the package, but within the hierarchy
>> the
>> > package is contained in, for instance the file system. IRI references
>> > inside a package may leave the package, but once they have left the
>> > package, they never can return into the package or another one.
> Note that we still have:
>
> "but within the hierarchy the package is contained in, for instance
> the file system."
>
> which doesn't make sense, or at least not at first.
>
> To some degree guessing on my part but I think the language of both
> the first and second sentence were meant to be talking about IRIs that
> are not relative paths.
>
> Thus:
>
> First sentence: wants to say: No special rules for non-relative path
> references. (ok by me)
>
> Second sentence wants to say: Repeats about absolute paths don't
> reference files in the package (repetition but ok) *and* that absolute
> path IRI can reference packages, for example in a file system.
>
> In other words, the second part of the second sentence was simply an
> *observation* about the capacity of an absolute path IRI.
>
> Third sentence wants to say: IRI can point to something outside the
> package (ok) but once it leaves it can't come back. ???
>
> Well, but IRIs only point to one location and since we don't have link
> hubs (XLink feature) there is no known mechanism for a single IRI to
> point outside of a package and then back into a package. Noting that
> we have already said that absolute IRI can't point into a package.
>
> OK, having gone the long way around (apologies but I wanted it to be
> clear that remarks from others and not any cleverness on my part has
> resulted in the following) here is what I would propose to "fix" the
> paragraph in question:
>
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not
> need any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files
> inside a package, but may, for instance, address packages that are
> held in a file hierarchy. IRI references inside a package may address
> anything addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no
> IRI outside of a package may address any location within any package.
> ****
>
> A bit wordy for me and I would suggest further edits on the second
> sentence, now that I suspect we know what was meant and to replace the
> paragraph with:
>
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not
> need any special processing. Absolute-paths can not reference files
> inside a package. IRI references inside a package may address anything
> addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package, but no IRI outside
> of a package may address any location within any package
> ****
>
> The second half of the third sentence strikes me as redundant with the
> second sentence. So, my personal preference would be:
>
> ****
> Every IRI reference that is not a relative-path reference does not
> need any special processing. An absolute-path IRI can not reference
> files inside a package. IRI references inside a package may address
> anything addressable by an IRI that is outside of a package.
> ****
>
> Note that I started to say "that is outside of *the* package" to make
> reference to the package containing the IRI but that would be wrong
> because we don't want absolute IRIs addressing files in *any* package.
>
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
