[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?
> -----Original Message----- > From: Yves Savourel [mailto:yves@opentag.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:53 PM > To: xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished? > > Hi Rodolfo, Josep, Pål, all, > > >> That's because, like Rodolfo interprets that the content of <target> > >> can be blank, one can also interpret that a copy of the source is > >> simply the translation in its initial form in a many steps process. > >> After all the specification doesn't define what "translation" is. > > > > Well, actually my tools don't put <target> elements in untranslated > > segments, not even blank ones. So, not all tools create invalid XLIFF > > files. > > Actually they do. I can use the latest version of Swordfish (3.0-11 7DC-3-9) to > save an XLIFF file that has both blank <target> elements and <target> > elements with a copy of the source. The original XLIFF that Swordfish creates doesn't have <target> elements. Users can add them at a later time as you did. > The bottom line is that one or more attributes are the only way to indicate > what exactly is in <target>. > > In 1.2 none of those attributes were required nor had default values, which > make many valid 1.2 files difficult to interpret. As I said before, that is not a problem with the specification. It is a problem with tools and how they are used. > We simply need to come up with a good set of attributes/values and > processing expectations in 2.0 to reflect the different states of the segments' > translation. The set included in XLIFF 1.2 was good enough for most cases. Perhaps XLIFF 2.0 should make them mandatory. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]