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] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:yves@opentag.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:14 PM
>> To: 'Josep Condal'; xliff-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [xliff-comment] XLIFF 2.0 Core finished?
>> > ...Actually, according to that wording, even an empty element
>> > <target></target> would be non-compliant unless the translation is
>> > precisely an empty string.

A missing non-whitespace string is exactly a non-translated string. I
would never see that an empty tag-set as anything but.

>> >
>> > For some reason, nearly all tools generating XLIFF, including the
>> > mainstream ones, are priming untranslated target strings with source
>> > strings.
>> That's because, like Rodolfo interprets that the content of <target>
>> can be blank, one can also interpret that a copy of the source is
>> simply the translation in its initial form in a many steps process.
>> After all the specification doesn't define what "translation" is.

A translation is any text that claims to be an alteration of the
original text. That means that the <source> cannot be similar to the
<target>. If they are not similar and if <target> does not have
significant whitespace, they are different and will have to be treated
as such.

That means that my en-GB translation of en-GB is still a valid translation.

> Well, actually my tools don't put <target> elements in untranslated segments, not even blank ones. So, not all tools create invalid XLIFF files.
> Dictionaries define what a translation is and I haven't seen a definition that considers the original text as an "initial form". When XLIFF 1.2 specification was released there was no need to specify the meaning of "translation". Obviously, some developers didn't understand that part.
> I did not expect that there would be a need for defining what translation is, but XLIFF 2.0 will probably need to include a definition.

An original text is always initial. How else could one start?

Any tool processing XLIFF should treat missing and empty
target-elements the same as above. There is no information, so we
should default to giving none.

Feel free to set me straight. :)

Pål Eivind Jacobsen Nes

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