[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff-omos] Modules and extensions
1) Have a section that maps prefixes to namespace IRIs at the top of the JSON object, 2) Use "prefix_name" where we have non-core objects. This way, the JSON access stays relatively simple, for example: unit.id; unit.subUnits[0].source.text; unit.gls_glossary[0] Using “:” for the prefix separator would force us to access things like this: unit["gls:glossary"][0] which is, in my opinion, not as clean. Using “_” you can do both: unit.gls_glossary[0] or unit["gls_glossary"][0]. As for the declaration of the prefixes, it could be done in a map at the top of the JSON object. Yves Savourel From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel The topic of namespaces in JSON is obviously not new, and there has been quite a few discussions about it. Some links I’ve found interesting: · http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/201506/msg00024.html · http://www.goland.org/jsonnamespace/ · http://blog.bdoughan.com/2011/04/jaxb-and-json-via-jettison-namespace.html · https://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/10/12/thinking_about_namespaces_in_json A lot of things point to JSON-LD. But that would add a significant level of complexity. Yves Savourel From: xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff-omos@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel Hi all, Implementing the Glossary module for JLIFF made me wonder about how we can have a common representation of modules (and extensions). Some implementations will not support a module like Glossary, but they still have to read JLIFF input that will have glossary entries. How can we accommodate both? Maybe we need to have the namespace identifier for the module/extension with the name, so we would have: "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:glossary": [ { "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:id": "ge1", "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:term": { "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:text": "Term text", "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:source": "Term source" } }, { "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:term": { "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:text": "hot" }, "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:translations": [ { "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:text": "hyt", "urn:oasis:names:tc:xliff:glossary:2.0:source": "Google" } ] } ] Certainly not great. Another way could be to use the prefixes: "gls:glossary": [ { "gls:id": "ge1", "gls:term": { "gls:text": "Term text", "gls:source": "Term source" } }, { "gls:term": { "gls:text": "hot" }, "gls:translations": [ { "gls:text": "hyt", "gls:source": "Google" } ] } ] With somewhere in the JLIFF input a map of the namespace identifiers and their prefixes. It’d be better, but still not great. For example I’m not sure what the ‘:’ in the names would do in _javascript_. And I’m not sure having to lookup prefixes will be very easy. Thoughts? Thanks, -yves Yves Savourel Confidentiality Notice |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]