RE: [xliff] Simplified XLIFF element tree

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:23 AM
> To: 'xliff'
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Simplified XLIFF element tree
> 
> Hi Rodolfo, all,
> 
> > ...
> > Your <trans-unit> elements don't have <source> elements.
> > In an XLIFF file each segment should have a source and
> > a target.
> 
> In XLIFF 1.2 we have <source> and <target> elements.
> In XLIFF 2.0 we don't know yet what we have.
> 
> 
> 
> > Unsegmented text must be optional and independent from
> > translatable segments.
> 
> What is the rational for such a requirement?

Because it should be possible to generate XLIFF files that don't include unsegmented text, which is not required at translation time.

 
> I can't think of a reason why XLIFF 2.0 cannot have a single representation of
> the source with an optional way to indicate its segmentation.
 
Translatable segments should contain a clearly defined source associated with a target, which could be empty, populated with a copy of source or missing when translation starts. 

If there isn’t a clear association between <trans-unit>, <source> and <target> like the one we had in XLIFF 1.0 and 1.1 things can go bad like in the sad experiment with <seg-source> introduced in XLIFF 1.2.

Please don't ruin the element that contains the segment source by adding segmentation information to it. 

Please keep unsegmented text out of the way.

Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com