Ability to be specific in rule background regarding how other rules are related.

[tombrunet]

This scenario came up in task force meeting 5/4/2023 regarding lang rules where inapplicable examples were failing the SC, but were included to highlight that another rule handled that situation. These scenarios should be included in the related rules section of the background, but we currently don't say why they're related.

This issue is to track the proposal where a rule might indicate something like:

Related rules:

• Rule X: covers the following scenarios:
  • lang attribute value is an invalid language

[carlosapaduarte]

@tombrunet could you try to prepare a PR so that we can discuss the best way to do this and move on from there?

[Jym77]

@tombrunet I think nothing is blocking us from doing it, but we probably want to have some (internal) guidelines on how to do it both on the syntactical level (sublist, …) and the semantics one (pre-made templates for theses sentences?)

It is usually much easier to discuss these things with a concrete example. So I agree that the best way to move forward would be to have a PR with such a change, at least on a handful of rules, so we can see what it would look like before deciding to do it everywhere.

[Jym77]

Decision: let's try this. Start with making the changes in a few rules, and gather data how it looks.

See how it goes and whether we can figure out some templates for the main cases. Maybe then make it mandatory.