[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 1.0 issues
On point 1, I'd just make the comment that the value of adding the tool that created the wordcount as an attribute is of relatively little use if you take a situation where, for example, "Tool X" generates the data, but "Tool Y" reads it for processing and has different ideas about what consitutes a word count. It's an age old problem in localisation - "Who has the correct word count?". As tools may be completely proprietary, even if based on XLIFF containers, I see no reason in complicating the attribute qualifiers. This may become the topic of a subcommitte... On point 3 - bear in mind that localisatin/language tools that aspire to be network-based will find base64 encoded content to be monumentally large to transfer. Europe, remember, is still predominantly 56K and we all remember the hassle involved in FedEx'ing CD's to China - business reality supercedes specification. Cheers Steve. S t e p h e n H o l m e s Localisation Development Manager International Product Development Voice: +353 (1) 241 5732 Fax: +353 (1) 241 5749 Novell, Inc., THE leading provider of Net business solutions http://www.novell.com >>> John Reid <JREID@novell.com> 04/11/02 19:02 PM >>> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC