XLIFF 2.1 WD - ITS vs ITSM

["Yves" <yves@opentag.com>]

Hi,

Looking at the rules files for ITSM, we can see there are several data categories that cannot be mapped by rules because they do not
have pointer attributes available.

- Localization Quality Issues
- Localization Quality Rating
- Provenance
- MT Confidence

This means a pure ITS processor cannot process an XLIFF document and get any data for those data categories.

This would be resolved if the namespace was ITS' rather than the ITSM (ITS Module) namespace.

I believe we selected early on to go with ITSM even for the data categories defined from scratch because of the <sm/> case where the
semantics need to be adjusted. Since, we establish (I think) that the <sm/> case is such that ITS processors cannot really resolve
it anyway.

In other words, the <sm/> case is hopeless if you are not an XLIFF processor, whether you use ITS or ITSM, and XLIFF processors do
treat <sm/> in a special way in the case of ITSM. They could do the same for ITS.

Hence, it seems all the data categories that ITSM implements 'from scratch' could be in the normal ITS namespace, and work for both
XLIFF and ITS processors.

-ys