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 Tracking report

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] Updated XLIFF Open Issues

XLIFF Open Issues Report

Updated 3 Feb 03


Open – Unassigned

Assigned - further action required

Assigned to Editor

Closed – no further action required

Deferred until after Spec 1.1 is released









Proposed by

Original Proposal

Discussion History



1.1 Spec



Extending Attribute Values

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d

10 December 2002 = Unanimous vote to use the 'x-' mechanism for attribute value extension. .
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



1.1 Spec



Context Group

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


3 Dec - unanimous vote to remove from the spec.


Further action requried:  remove from the spec.

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. .

John Reid

John Reid's Proposal

Mark Levins' Suggestion



1.1 Spec



New elements "default" and "defaults"

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


21 Jan 2003 No further attributes submitted at meeting – resolution stands as defined by John and now update to specification required.


14 Jan 2003:  This was accepted in a vote, but additional default attributes might be added to the <group> element at next week's meeting.


7 Jan 20003 Members of the TC have been asked express opinions on this before next week when there will be a vote.


19 Dec 2002: the proposal is to add these attributes to group for the express purpose of setting defaults for all child <trans-unit>s: charclass, maxbytes, maxheight, maxwidth, minbytes, minheight, minwidth, size-unit, translate, reformat

The attributes of the <trans-unit> that have not been considered for the <group> element are listed below: approved, phase-name, tu-state (proposed)

17 Dec 2002: John Reid to draft proposal for extending <group> for storing default attributes.

10 Dec 2002 : Mark raised John Reid's suggestion of using <group> to store defaulted values and adding the defaultable attributes to the group element. Tony suggested closing out on the original proposal and not using XPath by replacing the default strategy with <group>. John Reid volunteered to redefine the proposal around new attributes of <group> for the next meeting.


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

Amended by John Reid

Christian's Proposal

Christian's Amended
Proposal without XPATH

(29 Dec) John Reid’s use of <group> attributes proposal


Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Phase names in Alt Trans

10 Dec 2002: John outlined his most recent proposal which required very little changes to the XLIFF specification on the basis that it already provided enough support for tracking phases and histories. Tony motioned for voting on John's proposal at the next meeting, giving everyone enough time to digest the proposal and be happy with the suggested additional attribute values.
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"

John Reid's Proposal (10 Dec)



1.1 Spec



"Zero,  One or More" Language

5 Dec 02 After a vote it was unanimously agreed that this issue is at the discretion of the specification editor and to leave spec unchanged.


Propose replacing the phrase "zero, one or more" with the more precise "zero or more." This should be done globally

Bryan Schnabel




Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



reformat Element revisited

27 January Option 5 was selected in a vote.


The result details were: option 4, 1 vote; option 5, 11 votes; 1 abstain.


27 January 2003 – Vote will take place at 27 January 2003 meeting.  Voting will be limited to these 6 options:


Option 1: Siblings

Option 2: Restructure

Option 3: Embedded

Option 4: Combined

Option 5: Extended

Option 6: Do nothing - defer to future release


Chair recommends Option 5


24 Jan 2003  - Option 5, submitted by Doug


Extend the possible values for the 'reformat' attribute to provide sufficient control. XLIFF 1.0 presently uses ";"-delimited lists within attribute values to store multiple values. The 'coord' attribute is an example. It's value is actually four: "x;y;cx;cy", where "#" can be used for 'don't care'.


So let's extend 'reformat' the same way. Of course, we keep "yes" and "no" for compatibility.


"yes" = all format attributes may be changed

"no" = no format attributes may be changed

...or a semicolon-delimited list of the following in any order. If an attribute is listed, it means it may be reformatted.

coord = all 4 coords





font = all 3 font values










<trans-unit coord="#;#;183;272" font="Arial;2;normal" reformat="coord-cx;font-name" ...>


   <target coord="#;#;181;272" font="System;2;normal">...</target>

   <alt-trans coord="#;#;183;272" font="Arial;2;normal">

       <target coord="#;#;180;272" font="Arial Bold;2;normal">...</target>

       <target coord="#;#;185;272" font="Arial, Helvetica;2;normal">...</target>




Parsing the reformat list is fairly easy, even with XSLT, which has a limited set of string functions.


This option is 100% compatible, both forward and backward. It does not affect the structure at all. The only problem I can foresee an XLIFF 1.0 tool having is if an invalid value for reformat is assumed to be "yes" instead of "no" and allows some values to be changed that should. That is, an XLIFF 1.0 tool could interpret a value of "coord-cx;font-name" as "no" and not allow any of the format value to change. Of course, if it assumed "no" instead of "yes" it would not allow any changes. Since the default value for 'reformat' is "yes", I don't see either of the possibilities as being too harmful.


21 Jan 2003 More discussion regarding the 4 options, but with informal “straw poll” indicating overwhelming support for “Option 2 – Restructure”.  However,  it was noted that this option does not preserve backwards compatibility with 1.0.


14 Jan 2003 There was much discussion over the benefits of each of Matt's proposals (in essence, sibling elements to <source> and <target>, or child elements to <source> and <target>) with various advantages of each option pointed out, from backwards compatibility to neatness, to shortcomings with <alt-trans> and workarounds for these.  We will discuss this for one more week and vote at the next meeting on whether to accept this proposal in concept.


7 Jan 2003 Mat outlined his proposal (see discussion history) This will be discussed on 14 Jan 2003
17 Dec 02: Mat to rewrite proposal in full as it would appear in the specification,  and group to respond with any questions or issues.  This will be done before the next meeting.
10 Dec 02:  Matt tabled new suggestions for reformatting based on previously sent email. Mark raised objections to instruction-based reformat element that would require similar functionality to XPath and suggested adding new specific elements for content that can be changed as part of the translation process (e.g. font, coord, style etc) where these elements could contain a boolean attribute to indicate whether they could be altered. Matt agreed to further investigate this approach and create some examples for the next meeting. Enda then raised the question of how this would affect the 'default' discussion and Matt brought up the ability to default a translation or translatable content. Matt agreed to try to factor these two points into his investigation for the next meeting.
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


Mat's final proposal (7 Jan)


Mat’s summary of Options 1 – 4; to be used in ballot (submitted 23 Jan 2003)


Doug’s analysis and proposal (Option 5)



Mark's Comment




1.1 Spec



Context-group "purpose"
recommended values

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


10 Dec 02 :  The proposal was unanimously approved.

Original Proposal:

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>

10 Dec 02: After the discussion on issue 4, this item was deemed to be obsolete. Original Proposal: 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





1.1 Spec



Attribute Enumerated Values

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


7 Jan 2003 A motion from Doug was passed unanimously and this stated all enumerated valued would be listed within the specification. 18 Dec 02:  discussion is deadlocked during XLIFF Teleconference.  17 Dec 02: Discussion on listing all enumerated values for attributes in the specification (or not). At issue is whether these values are part of the specification or part of an external schema.

Mark Levins

Mark's proposal




1.1 Spec



Whitespace / List item delimiters

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


7 Jan 03

Mark’s proposal was agreed.

6 Jan 03:

Mark Levins submits revised text for the specification to be discussed at the next teleconference:


D.2. Attribute Values
Attribute values are case sensitive. It is strongly recommended that lower-case values are used. The specification recommends a number of values for some attributes, these are all lower-case.

Where multiple attribute values are to be used in an XLIFF document, two approaches are used:

For enumerated attributes (such as the 'purpose' attribute of <context-group>) the separator must be a space.

For other textual attributes that are not validated, the specification recommends the use of the semi-colon as a concatenation separator for values, for example, multiple contacts may be listed for a <file> with the attribute-value written thusly: contact-name="Frank Sinatra;Sammy Davis Jnr;Dean Martin".

17 Dec 02:
Multiple attribute values (lists) and valid separators not certain if legal to use ; or other delimiters, appears that whitespace is recommended by W3C, but this does not

Preclude using or ,.

Mark Levins

Mark's Initial Observation

Doug's Suggestion


Mark’s revised text for spec



1.1 Spec



TextContent Extensibility

14 Jan 03:

Gerard moved for a vote on deferring TextContent Extensibility until the next revision of XLIFF, Matt seconded and the motion was passed unanimously.


7 Jan 03

It was suggested at this meeting to defer discussion on this until after Spec 1.1 is complete. This will be decided on the meeting at 14 Jan.

6 Jan 02: This issue was tabled after considerable discussion during previous XLIFF teleconference.  The discussion will continue at next meeting (7 Jan).  The main points from the discussion were: 

1/XHTML can presently be handled within BPT and EPT inline tags

2/adding XHTML tags will create complexity and the requirement that all XLIFF tools to be fully capable of interpreting XHTML tags.

17 Dec 02: Extensibility of the TextContent to allow non-XLIFF tags, for example XHTML tags


Doug's Proposal

Doug’s Additional comments (17 Dec 02)


Doug’s additional comments  (24 Dec 02)


Yves’ Comments (24 Dec 02)



1.1 Spec

Specification Logistics

Specification Revision

Spec / Schema / DTD

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


7 Jan 03 It was agreed that schema and specification changes would be synchronized.

18 Dec 02: Spin-off from Issue 9. What is policy on relationship between Specifications and Schemas / DTDs?  Do minor changes to the DTD and Schema require a revised specification, and visa versa? John Reid / Mark Levins


Issue raised during Issue 9 discussion at XLIFF teleconference

John Reid / Mark Levins

Issue raised during Issue 9 discussion at XLIFF teleconference




1.1 Spec





Add phase-name attribute to <count>

27 Jan 03 – Updated in 1.1 Draft 2d


#7 Jan 03

This was agreed

Proposal: Add phase-name attribute to <count>

We already have a <phase> element that stores the tool-id 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 it to use the count could be made.

John Reid

John’s Proposal



Open Unassigned

1.1 Spec



Validation of XLIFF 1.0 with 1.1 Schema

Keep the targetNamespace in the schema (as it

is now), and document that XLIFF 1.0 documents will need to specify the XLIFF1.1 namespace in order to validate.


Doug's proposal (31 Jan 03)



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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC