OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [xliff-comment] Purpose of name attribute for <context-group>

Hi all,

>A) Each <context-group> element must have a unique name. You can't have two
><context-group> XML elements within the same <file> with the same 'name'
>The specification reads, "The optional name attribute may uniquely identify
>the <context-group> within the file." When referring to 'file', the
>reference is to the <file> element.
>Most of the uniqueness constraints mentioned in the specification must be
>unique within the <file> element.

The PO representation guide currently uses the same name for multiple
context-groups, this will need to be fixed in the following sections
to be consistent with the XLIFF 1.2 context-group "interpretation":
5.3. Translator Comments
5.4. Extracted Comments
5.5. References

In addition, the sample PO-XLIFF files will need to be updated to reflect this.

Also note that the XLIFF 1.1 Whitepaper make use of multiple
<context-group> elements with the same name in Section 6.1, I vaguely
remember that being the reason we used same-name groups in the PO
guide in the first place.

I agree with Jan-Arve, the XLIFF specification is not clear here, as
it can be interpreted both ways. I would like to ask for a
clarification of the following statement in the XLIFF specification:
"Because the <context-group> element may occur at a very high level, a
default context can be established for all  <trans-unit> elements
within a file. This default can be overridden at many subsequent
levels.". How does this overriding work, if not by matching on the
name attribute?

Going way back to an XLIFF 1.0 draft [1] - it seems that the original
intent of the 'name' attribute was to identify a set of
<context-group> elements. Specific sets of context-group elements
could be shown to the translator with the help of processing

Is there are real practical reason for enforcing uniqueness of the
name attribute, or is this just a product of an earlier version of the
specification that hasn't been revised - and then later interpreted as
meaning unique?

It is also interesting to note that somewhere between XLIFF 1.1 and
1.2 the 'name' attribute of <context-group> was changed from required
to optional.

[1] http://xml.coverpages.org/xliff-draft-specification-3.html#named-group


Asgeir Frimannsson
PhD Candidate
School of Software Engineering and Data Communications
Queensland University of Technology
126 Margaret Street, Level 3
Brisbane QLD 4001, Australia

Phone: (+61) 7 3864 9332 Mob: (+61) 405 412 696
Email: a.frimannsson@qut.edu.au

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]