[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Extensibility methods
Hi Arle, There is a proposal on the Feature tracker for this: Preserve metadata without using extensibility. I think the feature has changed a bit from
there in the discussions since but the general structure of the XML is there.
There has also been some more recent discussion, especially in the threads started at : http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201203/msg00021.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201203/msg00037.html http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201203/msg00078.html Regards, Fredrik Estreen From: Arle Lommel [mailto:alommel@gala-global.org]
Hi all, I'm just now back in Berlin. Apologies for missing Tuesday's call, but I trust being in transit to another country is a good reason to miss… I read this and am intrigued the the metaHolder element. Would it be possible to see a "live" example of what it would look like? I don't think I've seen one (or I've missed it), but Jung’s explanation is quite compelling to me. From an
implementation standpoint if you want to pass along some sort of internal metadata that may be useful, but you do not have a schema for it (or perhaps it was created ad hoc for a particular one-off project), this seems like a useful way to go, bearing in mind
the caveats expressed here. It would seem to hit the sweet spot for situations where something light is needed. But based on what I've read in the trail below, I would end up voting to allow both metaHolder and custom namespaces since I think they meet distinct
(albeit related) needs. -Arle Sic scripsit Yves Savourel in May 2, 2012 ad 03:26 :
Hi Fredrik, Jung, At last, good technical reasons to use something like <metaHolder>. I’m still not convinced it would be better than custom namespaces, but at least now I can see positive implementation aspects to it. I need to chew on that. +1 for Fredrik’s suggestion on the way to moving forward. Cheers, -yves From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On
Behalf Of Jung Nicholas Ryoo Hi all, Hi All,
I would like to follow up on yesterday's discussion on the <metaHolder> and namespaces to facilitate extensibility.
The first thing is a point which I don't think has been discussed before, and that is how easy it would be for a tool to make meaningful use of unknown extension data. At first it might sound like a nonworking or bad idea but I think there are cases where it would add value. In many cases metadata could be made useful even if the tools do not know the exact meaning of it, the problem is finding a good way to present it to the user. Here I believe that <metaHolder> as a grouped key/value store is much simpler to work with than arbitrary XML in a namespace. I also think it would make it simpler to extract the metadata for storage/retrieval in a database.
Specific things that I can see a use for is filtering the document on translation units with a specific key/value pair, or providing URL links to other information (or applications). Generically it would be possible to display (and possibly modify) the unknown data as a grouped property grid allowing the user to interpret the meaning of the data. Creating a query builder interface for a database would also be straight forward. To make the filtering / querying as useful as possible I would recommend to also provide a "datatype" for the "value" so that range queries can be used and appropriate input controls created. I think it makes sense to keep the list short and also allow "unknown" as the default type. So unknown, string, number, url and date feels like a good set to me, but I'm sure there are a few more that other would like to see. Another option if we do not want to specify the list we could use some other standard list like the XML primitive types http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#built-in-primitive-datatypes and use anySimpleType as the default / unknown.
All of this is possible with XML namespace extensions, but in my opinion it is much more difficult to create user friendly access to the data. A simple but not so user friendly way here is of course to just use XPATH for search and filtering and somehow display the XML fragments to the user.
Second thing is that I like the process/votes suggested David Filip and think we should start down this path to resolve the issue. First one where we simply vote if we want extensibility at all:
* 'Yes' for extensibility by some means
* 'No' for no extensibility at all
* 'Abstain' for need of more discussion
Second one where we vote on how, using 'Elements', 'Namespaces', 'Elements and Namespaces', 'Abstain' to select how to implement the extensibility, if the 'Yes' votes won the first vote:
* 'Elements' for extensibility by elements and attributes defined in the XLIFF specification. An example of this method is the proposed <metaHolder> feature.
* 'Namespaces' for extensibility by allowing third party namespaces at defined locations in the XLIFF documents. As we do in XLIFF 1.2 possibly with additional requirements for conformance and processing expectations.
* 'Elements and Namespaces' to use both of the above methods to facilitate extensibility.
* 'Abstain' for need of more discussion
If we choose to allow extensibility and the preferred way(s) to do it we can start looking at the implementation details.
Regards,
Fredrik Estreen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org
-- |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]