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] Re: [xliff] FW: [xliff-comment] Purpose ofname attribute for <context-group>

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 09:41 +1000, Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:


> > The <context-group> element holds context elements relating to the level
> > in the tree in which it occurs. Thus context can be set at a <group>
> > level, a <trans-unit>  level, or a <alt-trans> level.
> >
> > Context can be overridden by adding a new <context-group> at the desired
> > level. It is not necessary to set the same value for the "name"
> > attribute, as context applies to the level where it is present and does
> > not require to be matched with anything..
> That does however imply that you only have one <context-group> element
> at each level. 

No, that's incorrect. There is no restriction in the number of
<context-group> elements you can have at each level.

> What happens if you have multiple named groups at each
> level for different purposes? E.g. what if I have one context-group
> that gives further info to the translator about the context, and one
> that is for TM matching. Quoting the XLIFF 1.2 spec (2.3. Named
> Groups): "A different named group could be stored by the client,
> translator, reviewer, and localization engineer. 

You can have all the named groups that you want, provided that they all
have a different name.

> Processing instructions could inform a system which of these <count-group> to
> update during the localization process." Sounds good to me, but this
> is practically impossible! You would have to write a separate
> processing instruction for each and every named group (e.g. for each
> translation unit).

You can use prefixes, for example, to differentiate the different kinds
of groups to process. This is not a problem at all.

> I am fully aware about the fact that the current spec enforces
> uniqueness on the name attribute, but what I'm after is *a reasoning
> behind this* from the XLIFF TC. 

I can't answer that because I ignore the reasons for the change.

The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee,
without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you, not
being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other
unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other
third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain
circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission. The
content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not necessarily
that of Heartsome.

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