OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [xliff] Updated Issues

Attached as HTML file...  if the formatting is a problem,  can you 
please tell me what your system is, what browser you're using...

Tony Jewtushenko				mailto:tony.jewtushenko@oracle.com
Sr. Tools Program Manager			direct tel: +353.1.8039080
Product Management - Tools Technology Team
Oracle Corporation, Ireland

Title: XLIFF TC Issues Tracking

Active XLIFF TC Issues

ID Status Spec Topic Class Title Summary Proposed By Original Proposal Subsequent Discussions
1 Unassigned 1.1 Spec Extensibility Design Extending Attribute Values Proposal for validation mechanism for XLIFF files that have been customized. Three proposed alternatives are proposed for the schema: 
    1. From Yves uses the 'union'mechanism
    2. a new proposal from Christian which uses the 'redefine' mechanism. The argument in favor of the 'redefine' mechanism is that it provides a way of validating customized values and is more flexible, The argument for the 'union' mechanism is that it is simple and more easily implemented.
    3. Shigemichi's "x-" proposal:   to use a TMX style prefix for any custom attribute.  Danger here is that custom extensions for commonly named attributes ie,  "x-button",   could result in ambiguity or worse - invalid identification. Sugestion to extend with additional namespace identifier was not met with some resistance.
Christian Lieske Christian's Proposal sec 2.4 in WIP 1.1 spec
2 Assigned to
1.1 Spec Interoperability Design Context Group XLIFF 1.1 Working Draft, Section 2.3, paragraph 2 talks about the context-group element. In that section it talks about the different purposes for the context information, i.e. TMs, translators, etc. The final sentence refers to using PIs to indicate the different purposes. However, we are no longer specifying the use of PIs and we have never enumerated the purposes of context information.

3 Dec - unanimous vote to remove from the spec.

Further action requried:  remove from the spec.
John Reid John Reid's Proposal Mark Levins' Suggestion
3 Unassigned 1.1 Spec Interoperability Design New elements "default" and "defaults" Amended Requirements:
R.1 a mechanism to allow defaulting for
 XLIFF data categories

R.2 formal representation of data category
is secondary (i.e. the mechanism should
be applicable to attributes and elements)

R.3 mechanism should work for all XLIFF
data categories

R.4 location for defaulting information
is secondary (i.e. default in central
location, default at specific attributes or
elements, and default at all attributes
and elements is acceptable)

R.5 XPath should not be used to relate
default settings to the elements or
attributes to which they pertain
(let's call this 'target')
These requirements boil down to 3 questions:

Q.1 What is defaulted?
Q.2 How is it defaulted?
Q.3 Where is it defaulted?
Originally submitted proposal (which did 
not meet R.5), answered the questions
as follows:

P1.A1 allow defaulting for any XLIFF
data category

P1.A2 use XPath to designate the targets
for default settings

P1.A3 use a new central element 'defaults'
Amended proposals which take into account  R.5 :
P1': like P1 but without XPath
The idea here is that each target
explicitly names the defaults which should
be used for it. From my understanding,
this is not really kosher, since for
example the way to identify relationships
(or 'targets')is a proprietary and not
very efficient one. XPath is the standard
for this. Accordingly, I would ask the
TC members to reconsider my
original proposal.
P2: defaults are encoded at the level of 
the 'group' element (John's proposal)

P3: defaults are encoded 'in the vicinity'
of the XLIFF element to which they
pertain (Mark's proposal)


a)define defaultable data categories Q.1
b)design a representation for default
settings (Q.2); this has include a way to
identify to which XLIFF data category a
setting pertains
Christian Lieske Christian's Proposal Christian's Amended
Proposal without XPATH
4 Unassigned 1.1 Spec Interoperability Design Phase names in Alt Trans Proposal:
Since the current phase information can be retrieved from the <target> attribute I think we don't need phase-name attribute in the <trans-unit> element and my proposal is to remove it from there.

Mark's additional suggestion for "reason" attribute:

Provide another required attribute in <alt-trans> ,  "reason" to indicate the reason why a given <alt-trans> is an alternate translation.  A few suggested values for such an attribute are 'TM Suggestion', 'MT Suggestion', 'Rejected-Inaccurate', 'Rejected-Spelling', 'Rejected-Grammar' and 'Rejected-Length'.   List would remain open,  but with a list of suggeted values.
Mirek Driml Mirek's proposal 05 Dec-  Mirek's Clarification

05 Dec - Mark's suggestion
adding "reason"

6 Unassigned
1.1 Spec
reformat Element revisited
Simple, non-verbose, mechanisms to:

1. Indicate the translatability of any attribute/element, 
    or XLIFF standard values or extensions.
2. Store source and translated values for any structure
     marked as translatable

1)    A closed list of XLIFF standard attributes and
       elements that may be modified during translation.
       E.G state, target text

2)    Each member of the list will either have before/after
       placeholders or will be simply updated without
       keeping previous values

3)    No other attribute/element may be translated unless
       specifically marked as translatable

4)    Provide place holders for any modified element

Mat Lovatt

Mat's Initial Proposal

Mat's Revised Proposal

Mark's Comment
1.1 Spec
Context-group "purpose"
recommended values
Propose adding the following "purpose" 
attribute values:

- location, The context-group is used to
specify where the term was found in
the translatable source. Thus, it
is not displayed.

- match, Specifies that the context
information should be used during
translation memory lookups. Thus, it
is not displayed.

- information, Specifies that the context
is informational in nature, indicating
for example, how a term should be
translated. Thus, should be displayed
to anyone editing the XLIFF.

Combinations of these values can be made
via the standard mechanism of XLIFF. Thus,
purpose="location;match" would provide both
location and TM matching contextual
information. The schemas for this are
detailed in the original suggestion URL
John Reid
John's Proposal

1.1 Spec
phase-name as optional <alt-trans>
This was originally part of issue 4, but was split out as its
own issue on 3 Dec. meeting.

It was observed by Yves that we had no
naming convention for phase-name. Phase name
would have at least 3 distict uses within alt trans: 
1. to identify a different suggestion from a TM, 
2. to capture the evolution of translation during the
translation process,   and
3. identify rejected translations.

There is no way of distinguishing these elements. 
It was agreed that we look at phase-name attribute in
relation to this observation.

Add the phase-name attribute to the alt-trans as an
optional attribute. Following along with Yves's original
thoughts on this, the phase-name could be placed at the
<alt-trans> level for any <alt-trans> that has a <source>.
It would be placed in the target of any <alt-trans> that
does not have a <source>.

<trans-unit id="1" phase-name="5final">
  <source>Cancel Report</source>
  <target phase-name="4review">Annuler le Rapport</target>
  <alt-trans reason="Rejected-Inaccurate">
    <target phase-name="3trans">Annuler le rapport</target>
  <alt-trans match-quality="50%" reason="TM-Suggestion" phase-name="2pretrans">
    <source>Cancel All</target>
    <target>Annuler tout</target>

Yves / John Reid
Yves observation

John Reid's Proposal

Resolved XLIFF TC Issues

Proposed By
Original Proposal
Subsequent Discussions
5 Closed 1.1 Spec Editorial Editorial  "Zero,  One or More" Language Propose replacing the phrase "zero, one or more" with the more precise "zero or more." This should be done globally throughout the specification

26 Nov 2002 - discussed informally by group while waiting for quarum.  Discussion result is that the language in question,  although somewhat awkward,  is correct as per similar types of specifications,  and should be kept as is.

3 Dec 2002 - Unanimously voted to leave this matter of editorial style to the discretion of the editor.  No further action required.
Bryan Schnabel    

ID = Issue

Title = Short title/name of the issue

= Document referred to in issue (1.1 = XLIFF 1.1 specificati

Description = Short description of issue, possibly including link to origin of issue

Original Proposal - Link to XLIFF TC Requirement that motivated this issue

Topic   Rough topic categorisation, one of: Formal Extensibility,  Embedded XLIFF,  Interoperability,  Schema Design,  Migration,  Customisation

Class:  Design or Editorial

Status One of: Unassigned, Active, Closed, Postponed

Summary Current proposal for resolution of issue, possibly including link to further text

Proposed by  Person who raised the issue

Owner XLIFF TC Member responsible for the issue

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC