[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Revisions to Acronym proposal
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD President Comtech Services, Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80215 303-232-7586 joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com joannhackos Skype www.comtech-serv.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Esrig [mailto:esrig-ia@esrig.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:01 AM To: Robert D Anderson; JoAnn Hackos Cc: bhertz@sdl.com; Bryan Schnabel; christian.lieske@sap.com; dpooley@sdl.com; fsasaki@w3.org; rfletcher@sdl.com; ishida@w3.org; rmraya@maxprograms.com; tony.jewtushenko@productinnovator.com; KARA@CA.IBM.COM; ysavourel@translate.com; Erik Hennum; Michael Priestley; jogden@ptc.com Subject: Re: Revisions to Acronym proposal Thanks again for the copy ... I have four remarks. 3a. Is there an enumeration value in order to instruct that the first occurrence be of the form "expansion (acronym)"? If not, authors who want this format will have to know which occurrence is the first. If they must explicitly write "<abbreviated-form> (<abbreviated-form>)", then they must do so at the first occurrence. 3b. Translators should not fill in the expanded form where the acronym is requested if my suggestion in 3a is implemented. Otherwise, "expansion (expansion)" will result at the first occurrence in the translation. There seems to be a process issue, which is that translators need a way to indicate that they have completed translating a glossary entry, including the acronym. An alternate way of supporting that need would be to provide an explicit attribute that the translator sets to indicate that the acronym has been left empty deliberately. Then an empty attribute is consistently a sign that the expanded form should be used. 1. Are there controls to permit alternate titles (aside from the expanded form) for the glossary topics in the generated glossary? These would indicate that in the generated glossary, the topic should appear under the expanded form, under the abbreviated form, or both. If the abbreviated form is not unique, the control could be on that element so that multiple instances could be generated. This mechanism assumes that there is a capability to sort the generated glossary topics by title. 6. Is there a see/see-also/compare mechanism for glossary entries as was discussed for index entries? Best wishes, Bruce At 07:14 PM 1/21/2008, Robert D Anderson wrote: >Hi, > >As we agreed at today's call, I had a follow-up meeting with Erik Hennum to >discuss the translation group's suggestions. As a result, there are now >several concrete suggestions as changes to the original proposal ( >http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-translation/200801/msg00003.h tml >). I'll list the specifics below, and then send a more general note to the >main TC list. > >1. The group suggested that expanded forms should come first. So, the >proposal can remove glossAcronym and glossAbbreviation as options for the >main 'title' of the glossary topic. Instead, the expanded term will be >located first, using the glossterm markup that is used for every glossary >entry. The glossAcronym or glossAbbreviation are listed after that as >alternate versions of the expanded term. > >2. The glossFullForm (also called glossExpandedForm) element can be >removed, because the expanded form of the term is already encoded as the >term. > >3. When authors reference an acronym inline with the <abbreviated-form> >element, the rules will follow those defined by the translation >subcommittee: >- The first instance in one context will pull text from the >glossSurfaceForm >- Future instances will pull from the first glossAcronym (similar to >today's discussion, in that we cannot prevent many but users should only >have one) >- The consensus on today's call was that if an acronym is not available in >a target language, the expanded value should be specified. However, if the >acronym is empty because a translator removed it, the primary term (the >expanded form) should be used. > >4. The existing <glossStatus> element has a new value of "preferred" in the >enumeration. This can be used to indicate that an alternate form (such as >an acronym) is the preferred representation of a term. This is still not a >required element for acronym processing. If a <term> element is used to >reference a glossary entry, the following rules will be used when >retrieving the term: >- As a first choice, the form of the term marked "preferred" will be >retrieved >- If no term is marked preferred, or if the preferred term is empty >(possibly because it does not exist in a target language), the primary term >will be retrieved >- NOTE: using <abbreviated-form> will always use the processing rules >defined in #3, regardless of what is marked "preferred" > >5. As mentioned at the call, the language in the proposal about acronyms >needs to be cleaned up to include all of the translation issues described >in the original proposal. > >Please send any comments back to the list. Unfortunately Erik hasn't had >time to review this, so if I mis-characterized something he may be speaking >up soon. > >Robert D Anderson >IBM Authoring Tools Development >Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit >(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 (Good Monday & Thursday)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]