[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 1.2 errata, questions and comments
Stefan, Thank you for your comments (and sorry it took so long to reply). Your observations are correct. I've added the corrections to the errata page for the examples in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 and the schema fixes for count-group and count. The specification is the ruling document. Any discrepancies between the schema and the specification are resolved by changing the schema to match the specification. The other observations will require some discussion among the TC prior to me making changes to the schema. Your suggestions, however, do seem valid. Regards, Doug -----Original Message----- From: Uhrig, Stefan [mailto:stefan.uhrig@sap.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 1.2 errata, questions and comments Dear XLIFF TC, I'm developer at SAP and currently trying to implement XLIFF 1.2. I've already noticed the XLIFF 1.2 errata on http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF1.2/Errata, but I think I've found some additional errata in the specification and the provided schemas. Furthermore I'd like to ask some questions. I'll start with what I consider errata. Section 2.5.1: The <body>-element is missing in the example XLIFF code. The example schema in this section won't work this way in conjunction with the previous example. Attribute targetNamespace should read targetNamespace="http://www.ChaucerState.ac.pg/Frm/XLFSup-v1"; instead of targetNamespace="XLFSup-v1". Furthermore line xmlns:sup="http://www.ChaucerState.ac.pg/Frm/XLFSup-v1"; should read xmlns="http://www.ChaucerState.ac.pg/Frm/XLFSup-v1"; as prefix "sup" is not used in the schema. Section 2.5.2: The <body>-element is missing in the example XLIFF code, too. Section 3.2.1: According to specification content of the <glossary> element consists of the "glossary description and either exactly one <internal-file> or one <external-file> element". However, the schema allows either exactly one <internal-file> or one <external-file> element only, but no glossary description. Same as above for <reference>: According to specification content of the <reference> element consists of "A description of the reference material and either exactly one <internal-file> or one <external-file> element". However, the schema allows either exactly one <internal-file> or one <external-file> element only, but no reference material description. Attribute "phase-name" in element <phase> is typed as "string" in schema. However, in elements <target>, <alt-trans>, <bin-unit> and <bin-target> it is typed as "NMTOKEN". Therefore the schema allows to create phases by names you cannot reference in the above elements. Section 3.2.2: According to specification content of a <count-group> element consists of "One or more <count> elements". The schema allows zero <count> elements, too. According to specification in element <count> the attribute "count-type" is required. However, it is optional in the schema. Could you please provide some recommendations for the cases in that the schema is different from the specification? Are you planning to publish a revised XLIFF 1.2 specification? Additionally I came across some ambiguities, especially typing of attributes in the schema is too lax in my opinion. There are a lot of attributes with value description "Number" (e.g. minheight, maxheight, minwidth, maxwidth, minbytes, maxbytes). I would expect a numerical type at least in the schema, and for some attributes even an integer type (like for minbytes and maxbytes). However, the schema types them as string. This makes life of implementers hard, after the check against the schema a parser still has to check if he "understands" the attribute value. Is there a reason for this lax typing? On attribute "coord" the specification states that cx and cy represents the width and height as in Windows resources. The schema allows signed integers for cx and cy. However, the Windows resource specification (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms907882.aspx) states that width and height are unsigned integers in the range from 1 to 65,535. What are valid values here? I don't understand why content of attribute "mime-type" should only "roughly" correspond to the content-type of RFC 1341. It would be much easier for implementers if it would strictly correspond to RFC 1341. Indeed the schema allows values that are not valid according to RFC 1341 (e.g. type "model", subtype is mandatory according to RFC 1341, schema allows subtype-characters that are invalid according to RFC 1341). On the other hand there are valid mime-types (according to RFC 1341) that are not allowed by XLIFF-schema (for example "X-test/test"). Furthermore: while there is some pattern-typing for attribute "mime-type", the related attribute "form" is not typed this way. Is there a reason why "mime-type" and "form" are not required to correspond exactly to RFC 1341? Regarding attributes "minbytes" and "maxbytes" the specification states that the "verification of whether the relevant text respects this requirement must be done using the encoding and line-break type of the final target environment". However, XLIFF 1.2 specification does not offer a dedicated place where to store information on the target environment. Of course, a tool can specify them using one of the extension points but that will affect interchangeability in a negative way as implementers will do that in different incompatible ways. What is the correct way to evaluate these attributes? Best Regards, Stefan Uhrig
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]