[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-adoption] Groups - DITA/XLIFF Feature Article (DITA12XLIFFArticle.pdf) uploaded
Hi JoAnn, Here are my comments from reviewing this draft, including my action to reword the catalog item: Cover page: - The following (below the Editor line) does not make sense: *OASIS* On behalf of the DITA Adoption Technical Committee *Technical Committee* Should it not be: On behalf of the OASIS DITA Adoption Technical Committee? "OASIS" is in the wrong place, and "Technical Committee" appears twice. Page 3: We need an entry in the Document History. We can't vote on the document without it. I assume this is our initial revision being submitted to OASIS for formal approval... May need to check with Chet how we're supposed to word it. Is the Revision a number? Summary would probably state something about this being the initial draft the TC developed for formal OASIS approval. General question: We have more blank pages than pages with text. Does the OASIS PDF template require a duplex page layout? That may make sense for printed paper, but is annoying for PDFs read online. Should I ping Chet on this issue? I don't think it works for short documents like our articles. Page 7, first paragraph: Change "it is not possible to predict level of cost reductions in advance." to "it is not possible to predict *the* level of cost..." Page 7, "Initial workflow", end of first paragraph: Once your project is ready for translation, convert your maps to XLIFF format using a translation tool that supports DITA. This implies only the map is converted to XLIFF. This is incorrect, the referenced topics are also converted to XLIFF. We need to recast this sentence so that it's not misleading. I suggest: Once your project is ready for translation, convert your maps *and topics* to XLIFF format using a translation tool that supports DITA. Same section, second bullet: read the map(s) and generate matched-hierarchical XLIFF The tool presumably also resolves the topic references and therefore reads the topics as well, to generate the XLIFF. I think we should clarify this. Page 8, first bullet (this is my action item from our previous meeting): support your DITA specializations by using OASIS XML catalogs and allowing custom configuration of elements and attributes that are translatable I suggest we rewrite this bullet as follows (note I've added 2 sub-bulleted items here): support your DITA specializations by * validating the content against your DITA specializations (the use of OASIS XML catalogs is strongly recommended, but proprietary tools may have other ways to resolve the components of your DITA specializations to validate content) * providing a means to indicate which elements and attributes are translatable Page 8, step 1: The <map> is missing @id; please add @id="birds" to the opening <map> element. If you make this change, I assume the code in step 2 needs to be updated (you may need to check with Bryan on this). Currently we have <trans_unit id="map" resname="title">, but based on how the topics get converted to XLIFF, this may change to @id="birds_t, but because it's the map and not the topic I'm not 100% sure (and don't have time to check the XLIFF spec right now). Page 8, step 1: Please add the following to each of the topic files (ideally I'd like us to include the @encoding too, but I have not added them here): <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE concept PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Concept//EN" "concept.dtd"> I think it would be clearer if we state the filenames for each file we're showing. I had requested this previously, too. The bookmap presumably would be birds.bookmap, though the filename in step 2 (in the XLIFF file) states birds.dita -- I think that's a mistake. Page 8, step 2, XLIFF file code: I think the @original="birds.dita" is wrong, it should be "birds.ditamap (please see my previous comment). Page 9, step 3. PDF of what? I requested we state "PDF of the source content" to make it clear. Please add this change. Page 9, step 4: Please make the relevant changes I requested to step 2 to this XLIFF code as well. Page 9, step 5: Please add in the changes I requested to step 1 (file names and XML + doctype headers). Page 10, step 3: Is this done in the translation tool? If it is, I think we should say so. Page 11, step 7, missing space between "between" and "the" in the second paragraph. Page 11, step 8: I think this is wrong. Do we really want to send the XLIFF in the source language? I thought we wanted to send the XLIFF we got out of the above steps, which is partially translated. It's the PDF for context that should be in the source language. This is my understanding... That's it for now ;) Gershon On Aug 27, 2011, at 1:21 AM, joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]