Issue 0271 xml lang metadata examples take 2

[nigelmegitt]

2nd take at resolving #271, this time as discussed by adding an example with two ttm:item elements, each with a different xml:lang.

[skynavga]

Replace example with note.

[nigelmegitt]

@skynavga I thought from our meeting yesterday that I had this action. In any case I object to removing the example and would like to reinstate it as discussed in order better to illustrate the note you have added.

[skynavga]

I disagree. It is not required in the example, adds noise to the example, and produces an unwanted and unnecessary precedent. No illustration of the note is required.

…

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Nigel Megitt ***@***.***> wrote: @skynavga <https://github.com/skynavga> I thought from our meeting yesterday that I had this action. In any case I object to removing the example and would like to reinstate it as discussed in order better to illustrate the note you have added. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#307 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXCb07-BrtVgypusrM_Xj-q5k4BJcx4ks5r4_tYgaJpZM4NW48H> .

[skynavga]

Besides, wouldn't it be better to ask the original commenter if the note suffices?

…

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Glenn Adams ***@***.***> wrote: I disagree. It is not required in the example, adds noise to the example, and produces an unwanted and unnecessary precedent. No illustration of the note is required. On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Nigel Megitt ***@***.***> wrote: > @skynavga <https://github.com/skynavga> I thought from our meeting > yesterday that I had this action. In any case I object to removing the > example and would like to reinstate it as discussed in order better to > illustrate the note you have added. > > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#307 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXCb07-BrtVgypusrM_Xj-q5k4BJcx4ks5r4_tYgaJpZM4NW48H> > . >

[nigelmegitt]

The commenter has already given a hint here, when he added a +1 to the proposal to add a note and an example as per #301 (comment) - nevertheless I'm of course happy to receive further feedback.

I disagree that the new example adds noise; it illustrates the note and therefore makes that note easier to understand. That is the purpose of examples. This is not setting any new precedent. Unless you think that it does not correctly illustrate the note then this seems like a pointless debate; I'm afraid I haven't yet been able to understand why you are so against adding the example @skynavga. By the way just to be clear, I am talking about reinstating the specific short example that only illustrates two ttm:item elements each with differing xml:lang values and content as introduced by 4679535, not the addition of xml:lang to an existing example, which I think we have agreed not to do.

[skynavga]

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Nigel Megitt ***@***.***> wrote: The commenter has already given a hint here, when he added a +1 to the proposal to add a note and an example as per #301 (comment) <#301 (comment)> - nevertheless I'm of course happy to receive further feedback. I disagree that the new example adds noise; it illustrates the note and therefore makes that note easier to understand. That is the purpose of examples. This is not setting any new precedent. Unless you think that it does not correctly illustrate the note then this seems like a pointless debate; I'm afraid I haven't yet been able to understand why you are so against adding the example @skynavga <https://github.com/skynavga>. By the way just to be clear, I am talking about reinstating the specific short example that only illustrates two ttm:item elements each with differing xml:lang values and content as introduced by 4679535 <4679535>, not the addition of xml:lang to an existing example, which I think we have agreed not to do.

Let me repeat for about the 5th time. This section is not about language identification, it is about named metadata item elements. There is nothing special about named metadata item elements with respect to language identification that doesn't apply to every other element type that permits xml:lang. It is quite absurd, incongruous, and inconsistent to insist that anything at all be said about language identification in this context, since it is entirely orthogonal to the element definition. If we add this silly example here, the next thing you or someone is going to do is ask for one everywhere. And I'm just not going to go down that path, so please stop trying to force a bad and wrong resolution of the original comment. I would say the original comment needs no response in the spec whatsoever, but I have added a note to assuage the original commenter, and that should suffice.

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#307 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXCb1SV-1AsjVx0r3uN6ulX0VaMXEq6ks5r5BBkgaJpZM4NW48H> .

[skynavga]

I'm willing to accept an alternative which perhaps would suit you: remove the note I added under 14.1.6 (leaving that section unchanged) and then add a new example under 8.2.8, with the caption "Example Fragment - Language Identification on Content and Metadata", and with code that shows xml:lang on root, on p, and on ttm:item.

…

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 2:54 AM, Glenn Adams ***@***.***> wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Nigel Megitt ***@***.***> wrote: > The commenter has already given a hint here, when he added a +1 to the > proposal to add a note and an example as per #301 (comment) > <#301 (comment)> - > nevertheless I'm of course happy to receive further feedback. > > I disagree that the new example adds noise; it illustrates the note and > therefore makes that note easier to understand. That is the purpose of > examples. This is not setting any new precedent. Unless you think that it > does not correctly illustrate the note then this seems like a pointless > debate; I'm afraid I haven't yet been able to understand why you are so > against adding the example @skynavga <https://github.com/skynavga>. By > the way just to be clear, I am talking about reinstating the specific short > example that only illustrates two ttm:item elements each with differing > xml:lang values and content as introduced by 4679535 > <4679535>, > not the addition of xml:lang to an existing example, which I think we > have agreed not to do. > Let me repeat for about the 5th time. This section is not about language identification, it is about named metadata item elements. There is nothing special about named metadata item elements with respect to language identification that doesn't apply to every other element type that permits xml:lang. It is quite absurd, incongruous, and inconsistent to insist that anything at all be said about language identification in this context, since it is entirely orthogonal to the element definition. If we add this silly example here, the next thing you or someone is going to do is ask for one everywhere. And I'm just not going to go down that path, so please stop trying to force a bad and wrong resolution of the original comment. I would say the original comment needs no response in the spec whatsoever, but I have added a note to assuage the original commenter, and that should suffice. > — > You are receiving this because you were mentioned. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub > <#307 (comment)>, or mute > the thread > <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXCb1SV-1AsjVx0r3uN6ulX0VaMXEq6ks5r5BBkgaJpZM4NW48H> > . >

[nigelmegitt]

@skynavga That would work for me also.

[skynavga]

Added example in 8.2.8. Decided to leave note in place in 14.1.6.

[nigelmegitt]

Changes look good to me. (I cannot explicitly approve this because GitHub thinks it is my pull request)

[skynavga]

No outstanding substantive comments and 3 days have passed.