[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
Hi Phil, Ryan, all,
I’m not sure using nested objects is going to be very friendly.
It forces recursivity which may not always easy to implement.
Something like innerText/innerContent needs to be more like a sub-fragment array, which in this case has only a plain text entry.
[
"Text in",
{
"kind":0,
"id": "1",
"codeStart": "<b>",
"codeEnd": "</b>",
"innerContent":
[
"bold"
]
},
"format.",
{
"kind":1,
"id": "2",
"code": "<br>"
}
]
If there are several nested inline codes we quickly end up with a complex structure.
Obviously the nested structure maps well to a tree that could be one of the in-memory representation of the object model for some. Such representation could be mapped to a linear in-memory representation as well obviously. But the reverse is also true.
In the context of JSON I tend to think we would be better off to use the simplest representation possible. From the API viewpoint this would be invisible anyway; we would have something like IFragment frag = reader.readFragment(jsonString); where IFragment would be the object offering the functions giving access to the content.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
-yves
From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Phil Ritchie
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:48 PM
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
All
I came across the same issue as Yves with Ryan's notation, namely duplicate keys. The Newtonsoft Json library used by most C# developers strips off the first plaintext field.
From playing with both, nested inline tags are also difficult to handle in Ryan's notation.
I did find Ryan's more intuitive to read though.
We have quite a lot of content that contains custom placeholders with translateable attributes. In XLIFF, right or wrong, we encode as:
<originalData>
<data id="d1"><b></data>
<data id="d2"></b></data>
<data id="d3"><br/></data>
<data id="d4">[productname name="</data>
<data id="d5">"]</data>
</originalData>
<!--
<h1>[productname name="Acme Phone"] now available in stores</h1>
-->
<source>
<pc id="1" dataRefStart="d1" dataRefEnd="d2">
<pc id="2" dataRefStart="d4" dataRefEnd="d5">Acme Phone</pc> now available in stores
</pc>
</source>
Making a hybrid of Yves and Ryan's notation I get:
[
{
"id": "1",
"codeStart": "<h1>",
"codeEnd": "</h1>",
"innerContent": {
"id": "2",
"codeStart": "[productname=\"",
"codeEnd": "\"]",
"innerContent": "Acme Phone"
}
},
" now available in stores"
]
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-
> open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: 15 January 2016 22:03
> To: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
>
> Hi Ryan, all,
>
> I don't think it would be a good idea to use a notation where the names of
> the objects correspond to their type, like in your example.
>
> We would have duplicates (like "plainText" twice in your example) and it is
> likely to cause trouble.
>
> The JSON specification does not say anything explicit about uniqueness of
> the names. But RFC 7159 (The JSON Data Interchange Format:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159#section-4) says "The names within an
> object SHOULD be unique". And usually one is better off treating a SHOULD
> like a MUST unless there are very good reason to do otherwise.
>
> The main example of issue with duplicated names is that many
> implementations of JSON reader use some kind of Map, Hash, or Dictionary
> classes that do not support duplication of keys.
>
> See also the discussion here:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21832701/does-json-syntax-allow-
> duplicate-keys-in-an-object. The consensus seems to be that, while strictly
> speaking JSON does not forbid uniqueness of the names, it is a really good
> idea to keep these names unique for all kinds of very valid reasons.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan King [mailto:ryanki@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 1:39 PM
> To: Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>; Yves Savourel
> <ysavourel@enlaso.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
>
> Sorry, I should also ask the question of why original codes need a type, or
> kind, as you indicate below. Couldn't they just be distinct objects in the
> model? Maybe there is a nuance I am missing, though.
>
> For example:
> standaloneCode
> spanningCode
> spanningCodeStart
> spanningCodeEnd
> etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-
> open.org] On Behalf Of Ryan King
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 10:12 AM
> To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>; xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
>
> Hi Yves,
>
> Thanks for getting the ball rolling. I absolutely agree with you that we should
> just start defining the JSON representation.
> Starting at inline and working out is good, as well. Once we agree on inline
> representation, the rest is easier. So I'm all for this approach. I do see the
> representation of your sample a bit differently, however. In the MS OM, the
> sample would be represented as an array of four objects: PlainText,
> SpanningCode, PlainText, StandaloneCode - just using those object names as
> an examples, you could serialize it to something like this:
>
> {
>
> "plainText": "Text in",
>
> "spanningCode": {
>
> "id": "1",
>
> "codeStart": "<b>",
>
> "codeEnd": "</b>",
>
> "innerText": "bold"
>
> },
>
> "plainText": "format.",
>
> "standaloneCode": {
>
> "id": "2",
>
> "code": "<br>"
>
> }
>
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-
> open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:13 PM
> To: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xliff-omos] A few notes in JSON and inline content
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have to start somewhere, so maybe a good place is a simple inline
> content. It's one of the most tricky parts to serialize in a common way
> because the internal representation of such content is likely to be different
> in the various implementations depending on how the overall document is
> stored (e.g. DOM, DB, memory, etc.) and also on what the implementation
> goals are (e.g. do matching, be the back-end of an editor, etc.).
>
> A possible effective representation would be the simplest. It may not fit
> exactly the underlying object of all implementations, but it should be
> relatively easy to generate and parse by all.
>
> Such content is simply an array of objects. So for example, if we have this
> object (here in XLIFF so everyone can relate to it):
>
> <originalData>
> <data id='d1'>&lf;b></data>
> <data id='d2'></b></data>
> <data id='d3'><br></data>
> </originalData>
> ...
> <source>Text in <pc id='1' dataRefStart='d1' dataRefEnd='d2'>bold</pc>
> format.<ph id='2' dataRef='d3'/></source>
>
> The JSON representation could be something like this:
>
> [ "Text in ",
> {
> "kind":0,
> "id":"1",
> "data":"<b>"
> },
> "bold",
> {
> "kind":1,
> "id":"1",
> "data":"<\/b>"
> },
> " format.",
> {
> "kind":2,
> "id":"2",
> "data":"<br>"
> }
> ]
>
> The array has 6 objects: 3 strings, which correspond to the spans of plain text,
> and 3 objects corresponding to the inline tags. The objects would have a
> relatively identical structure. The "kind" field (trying to keep "type" for the
> XLIFF-type) would indicate if the object is an opening code (0), and closing
> code (1), a standalone code (3), an opening marker (4) or a closing marker
> (5).
>
> We would have also some rules:
>
> - The fields that have values equals to the default value MAY be omitted in
> the JSON string.
> - The fields within the objects would have no prescribed order.
> - The fields common to both the opening and closing codes (e.g. id, type,
> etc.) would be represented once only: in the opening code.
> If there is no opening code (i.e. there is an isolated closing code) the fields
> would be represented in the closing code.
>
> This is just one possible representation.
> I'm sure others have better ideas and suggestions.
>
> Cheers,
> -yves
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Phil Ritchie | Chief Technology Officer | VistaTEC
VistaTEC House, 700 South Circular Road, Kilmainham, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Tel: +353 1 416 8000
Email: Phil.Ritchie@vistatec.com | www.vistatec.com | ISO 9001 | EN 15038
Expert Leadership in Global Content Solutions
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]