[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 1.0 issues
Hi All, My comments follow Mark's, between <jr>...</jr> tags. >>> Mark Levins <mark_levins@ie.ibm.com> 4/5/02 5:59:53 AM >>> 1. <note> as a child of <count> Currently the <count> element is very ambiguous, a note as a child element could be used to indicate what was being counted, what was considered a word etc. <jr>The <count-group> and <count> elements can be very problematic. A <note> element within the <count> element may help in the customized support required by these elements but that is a human readable approach and probably would need to be defined even more to be truly useful. A stronger definition of the count element may do more for us. <count> has the 'unit' attribute which has recommended values of word, page, trans-unit, bin-unit, and item. The latter three are defined according to elements within the spec but the former two must be defined by the tool creating the count. I suggest that we include the tool as an attribute to the count-group. This would be the same attribute used in <file>, <phase>, and <alt-trans>. Further refinement of the 'unit' attribute may alo be necessary.</jr> 2. The <count-group>, <prop-group> and <context-group> elements can be used within a <group> without any other relevant child elements The 1.0 specification allows that a <group> element can contain (for example) a <count-group> without containing anything to count. I think the <group> element should be changed to contain at least one of <group>, <trans-unit> or <bin-unit>. <jr>Shouldn't this requirement be placed on the <body> also?</jr> 3. Binary elements & <internal-file> This is kind of a big one. At the moment the specification does not define the form of the content of the <internal-file> element (although there is an optional 'form' attribute). The problem is see with this is that the specification allows users place binary data directly as content - this binary content may contain the reserved XML characters < > etc which will cause parsers to choke. The CDATA section approach is also not good enough to provide a solution. My suggestion is that the content of the <internal-file> be restricted to Base64 or at least stated so. Also, the description in the spec for the <internal-file> element reads "The <internal-file> element will contain the data for the skeleton file." which is technically wrong, it may also contain data for an <bin-source> or <bin-target> element. <jr>How does CDATA fail this purpose? I wouldn't want to restrict this to just Base64; thus, requiring a conversion for both the producer and any subsequent processor that may be able to handle the original format without a problem. Additionally, wouldn't we need an attribute such as 'original-format' if we forced your conversion?</jr> 4. mime-type attribute of <bin-source> How come this attribute is omitted from the <bin-source> element? Note that it is an attribute of <bin-target> <jr>We generally put attributes for <source> and <bin-source> in the parent, <trans-unt> and <bin-unit>, respectively. The 'mime-type' attribute of the target allows a different mime-type for the target in cases where it differs from that specified from the <bin-unit>'s. Otherwise, the mime-type of the target is unnecessary.</jr> Cheers, john
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC