[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 1.0 issues
On Point 1: [Alt-jr1] The purpose for including the tool as an attribute of the <count-group> is so that Tool Y will know that the counts it is about to use/update are not theirs. Thus, Tool Y may want to produce its own. However, if Tool Y is compatable with Tool X, then it can use Tool X's counts. Meanwhile, Tool X can find its own counts and update, accordingly. <count-group tool="Tool X" name="example"> <count count-type="untranslated">132</count> </count-group> This does become complicated, though, when Tool Z is used. Tool Z may have a compatibility issue with Tool Y but not ToolX. If Tool Y updated Tool X's counts, Tool Z may use those inaccurately. [Alt-jr2] There is another solution to this: We already have a <phase> element that stores the tool used in that phase. The phase-name attribute could be added to <count>. Thus, when that count was produced and by what, could be ascertained by any subsequent tool and a determination of if to use the count could be made. <phase-group> <phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/> </phase-group> ... <count-group name="example"> <count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count> </count-group> Then again, with either method, a tool has to update the attribute of a count or count-group element and historical data is lost. Thus, adding the phase-name or the tool attribute methods have essentially the same consequence: Tool Z knows which tool last touched the named count. Using a tool attribute has the advantage of being in the scope of the current node. The phase-name has the advantage of carrying additional information such as date. [Alt-jr3] Another alternative is to add a new element to <count-group>, such as <update>, that has attributes of tool and date. Thus, multiple updates could be recorded for a <count-group>. This would need to be at the <count-group> level since we do want to keep the contents of <count> to the actual count. <count-group name="example"> <update tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/> <count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count> </count-group> This solution has the disadvantage that it implies an update to all the counts within a <count-group> of which there may be many and only one updated. This is also a weakness for adding the tool attribute to <count-group>. Alt-jr2 can be used to keep historical data since ther is no restriction on the number of counts that can be stored within the <count-group>. Thus, Tool X can supply a count in phase 1, <phase-group> <phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/> </phase-group> ... <count-group name="example"> <count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count> </count-group> Tool Y can add an update to it in phase 2, <phase-group> <phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/> <phase phase-name="translate" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Y" date="2002-04-11T11:43:04Z"/> </phase-group> ... <count-group name="example"> <count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count> <count phase-name="translate" count-type="untranslated">43</count> </count-group> and Tool Z can update Tool X's count and ignore Tool Z's in phase 3. <phase-group> <phase phase-name="create" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool X" date="2002-04-10T09:41:02Z"/> <phase phase-name="translate" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Y" date="2002-04-11T10:42:03Z"/> <phase phase-name="review" process-name="Translation" tool="Tool Z" date="2002-04-12T11:43:04Z"/> </phase-group> ... <count-group name="example"> <count phase-name="create" count-type="untranslated">132</count> <count phase-name="translate" count-type="untranslated">43</count> <count phase-name="review" count-type="untranslated">56</count> </count-group> Thoughts? cheers, john >>> Stephen Holmes <sholmes@novell.com> 4/11/02 4:44:58 PM >>> 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> ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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