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] | [List Home]

Subject: [xliff] XLIFF Open Issues

Attached is the latest revision of the open issues report to be reviewed 


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 Mar 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



1.1 Spec



Phase names in Alt Trans

25 Feb 03:  This is related to issue 20.


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





1.1 Spec



reformat Element revisited

25 Feb 03: Implemented in Draft 9,20 Feb 02


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'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



Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Validation of XLIFF 1.0 with 1.1 Schema

18 Feb 03: Doug suggested that we include a section ‘helpful tips on how to migrate from 1.0 to 1.1.  It will be stated in this section that in order to have xliff 1.0 documents validated against the xliff 1.1 schema, the 1.1 namespace will have to be declared.


11 Feb 2003 Discuss and possibly vote on this issue.


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)


OASIS Namespace Guideline


More examples


Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Bin Unit size / coord

18 Feb 03: 

Decision:   A new attribute, 'xid', be added to all inline elements which references the id in the trans-unit and bin-unit.


Proposed by John and seconded by David

This was carried by 11 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention


John had sent a proposal on the <bin-unit> issue which Enda commented on in a follow up mail.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200302/msg00030.html (John's mail)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/200302/msg00032.html (Enda's mail)



The issue of rid having two different purposes depending on what element it was an attribute of was raised.

It was proposed that a new attribute, 'xid', be added to all inline elements which references the id in the trans-unit and bin-unit. Proposed by John and seconded by David

This was carried by 11 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention




11 Feb 03 : John will formally write and suggest how we could reference using tu-ref and a bu-ref attribute that allows trans-units and bin-units to linked through their ids.


Original Proposal:

Where we have icons that are being localized, we need to keep track of the change in size of the icon. However, the current definition of <bin-unit> does not have that information. In the <trans-unit> we have the coord attribute to store that info. Since we are at a 1.0 implementation, we could use a <prop> to give us that info but I prefer the <context> since we can codify it and make it understandable to translators, provided that the tools understand it.


   <bin-unit id="1" mime-type="image/gif" translate="yes" reformat="yes">

      <bin-source><external-file href="btnadvanced.gif"/></bin-source>

      <context-group name="translation">

        <context context-type="bin-coord">0;0;86;16</context>





The better solution would be to add coord as an attribute of <bin-unit> and <bin-target>. After all, what  does reformat control for <bin-unit>? The only attributes that could be reformatted are mime-type, restype, and resname. We may need the other following attributes:


coord            <bin-unit> and <bin-target>

size-unit        <bin-unit> only

maxheight      <bin-unit> only

minheight       <bin-unit> only

maxwidth       <bin-unit> only

minwidth        <bin-unit> only


The above could then be expressed as follows.


   <bin-unit id="1" mime-type="image/gif" translate="yes" reformat="yes" coord="0;0;86;16">

      <bin-source><external-file href="btnadvanced.gif"/></bin-source>



If someone has come across this same problem and found a different solution, I would appreciate the help. Otherwise, as much as I don't want to delay the process, we may want to consider taking care of this now. What do you think?

John Reid

John's original proposal

Yves’ Follow Up


Doug’s input


Yve’s next follow up


Stephen Holmes’ input


Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Attribute name Case guidelines

18 Feb 03: Outcome

1.  Keep lower case for the attribute names - no objections


2.  Remove the word 'strongly' from spec  - because where attribute definition is 'text', we can't verify – no objections


3.  Allow whitespace for attribute values - because if we change this then 1.0 documents containing white space in attribute values will fail 1.1 validation



Mark pointed out, as a related aside, that all suggestions for attribute values so far in the spec doc need to be made lower case.


These are still under discussion and need to be agreed yet.



11 Feb 2003 Discuss and vote


Removing the guidelines about using lowercase values for attributes. The first paragraph of section D.2. As it

is part of the 1.0 specification we need vote to accept it.

Yves & Christian

Yves’ original mail



Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Extension Namespace

18 Feb 03: 

Decision:  change the extension point from 'other' to 'any'. This would allow you to have XLIFF as an extension proposed by Christian and seconded by Yves

This was carried by 5 votes for, 2 against and 3 abstentions




18 Feb 03

Shigamichi - would like to do some more research, he would like to see an example of how people use this 'ANY'.


Christian & Yves will try to come up with examples and make a recommendation for the next meeting.


Mark pointed out that this may not be a global discussion, maybe we would need any sometimes and other in other times.




11 Feb 03:

One little (but important) point about the extension points in the schema: They are currently set as '##other', which means "Any well-formed XML that is not from the target namespace of the type being defined" (thus, non XLIFF). Christian reminded me that a while back, there was a discussion

about replacing this by '##any', which means "Any well-formed XML from any namespace" (thus, including XLIFF itself). The rational was that we may want give users a possiblity to use XLIFF data categories in a non-standard context. See the W3C documents for more information on namespaces at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#nsTable. Input on this would be welcome


Yves’ original mail



Assigned to Mark / Yves

1.1 Spec




18 Feb 03: Decision: context-type is unchanged (only one value per instance).

Action Item: Mark will verify his results and pass it on to Yves.


11 Feb 03: As per yesterday discussion it seems that some of us assume the 'context-type' attribute can take several values (like 'purpose'). There is no information about this is the current specifications and the current

schema doesn't allow this. If it's the case, the schema needs to be adapted and use a pattern like for 'purpose'. When reading the specifications keep

in mind that if the description of the attribute does not mention the values can be used in combination it means the schema does not allow combination.

Let me know where else there is a discripancy like for 'context-type'.


Yves’ original mail



Open assigned to Bryan

1.1 Spec



Consolidated Attribute Values Lists

25 Feb 03:  Bryan developed XSD solution which solved the problem by defining count-type as a union of attribute values of datatype+restype+state and pre-existing values list.  This portion of the work is now complete.


Last remaining issue is how to validate mimetype value,  since we don’t want to list all known media/subtypes but only validate that value consists of one of 8 valid media type and correct syntax per RFC .  Bryan to investigate and propose solution before the end of week.



18 Feb 03:  John led a discussion on this topic,  indicating that Option 1 is pretty much what we have in the present proposal,  Option 2 is the preferred method but John was unable to implement,  and Option 3 is what more or less what Gerard suggested in his proposal.  The TC agreed that Option 2 is the best solution,  and Bryan Schnabel agreed to research and find the appropriate XSD   If this solution is not found, then it was agreed to fall back to Option 1.



18 Feb 03:

John opined that there are 3 options for us: 1) enumerate the count-typs as we have done without reference to datatype, restype, and state; 2) find a method in the schema to refer to the attribute values of datatype, restype, and state in the definiion of the count-type (e.g. datatypeValueList | restypeValueList | stateValueList"); 3) find a method to actually refer to what is counted in the XLIFF via the count-type. He thinks that it is too late to do #3 but would be worthwhile to do #2.


John will try to implement #2 option, above for the next meeting.



11 Feb 03:

The current proposals we have been discussing for new values for this list of attributes raise the issues of cross-pollination of attribute values from one attribute into the others. As it currently stands, a number of attributes values are found in other categories for a number of reasons.


1. Add 3 attributes values to the count-type attribute: datatype, restype, and state. Each attribute value must augment its value by adding a dot and an enumerated value from their corresponding attribute. Here is an example: count-type=datatype.cstring, or count-type=restype.dialog, or count-type=state.needs-translation.

2. Remove duplicated attribute values in count-type:

a.cstring, msglib (in datatype)

b.needs-translation, needs-review, signed-off (in state).  Not sure about Christian's new proposed list. They appear to be count-type in their own right. Comment?

3. Datatype, restype, and state attributes have additional values proposed, which won't discussed here.


Gerard’s Original Proposal




1.1 Spec



Phases of Alt Trans

25 Feb 03:  No solution proposed – TC decides to defer this issue.


18 Feb 03:  John to come up with proposal by next meeing or we will drop the matter for 1.1 


11 Feb 03:  not covered in today’s meeting

Yves originally suggested using the existence of the match-quality attribute to determine whether an alt-trans was leveraged or change control. Match-quality is free text that can contain a score or any arbitrary value based on the tool that generates the <alt-trans>. Unfortunately this makes it difficult to rely on that attribute.


Mark suggested adding a reason attribute to the <alt-trans> with the values 'TM Suggestion', 'MT Suggestion', 'Rejected-Inaccurate', 'Rejected-Spelling', 'Rejected-Grammar' and 'Rejected-Length'. This would allow us to mark an alt-trans as being leveraged ('TM Suggestion' and 'MT Suggestion') or change-control ('Rejected-Inaccurate', 'Rejected-Spelling', 'Rejected-Grammar' and 'Rejected-Length'). Thus, all <target>s in an <alt-trans> would have to have the same reason. Or, rather, a new <alt-trans> would be needed for each of the rejected reasons. This may create a lot of <alt-trans> but only if someone (the translator?) is doing a poor job. Likely there will only be very few of these.


I had suggested we use the origin attribute of <alt-trans> with the value 'this-file' to indicate a change-control. This would require enumerating that one value for origin and making any other values to begin with an 'x-', to be consistent. That just isn't very practical.


Maybe a combination Yves's and Mark's suggestions are the answer. Enumerate match-quality with Mark's values and allow extension.


I still stand by my suggestion of adding a state attribute to <trans-unit> for the reasons outlined. I also suggested to add Mark's reason values to state. However, I suggest that we not do that.

John Reid

John’s original proposal


More discussion by John (21 Feb)

Doug’s Comment


John’s reply to Doug



Assigned to Editor

1.1 Spec



Attribute Values List

25 Feb 03: TC modified and voted to accept lists in principal for context-type, count-type, restype, datatype.  A number of items were also moved to state. 


18 Feb 03: Tony to consolidate all inputs and respond with updated list before next meeting.


Define the list of list of attribute values.


Tony’s consolidated list


Tony’s revised list





1.1 Spec



Inline Tags

25 Feb 03:  TC defers this item to post-1.1 timeframe.


20 Feb 03: Use of some of the inline tags requires clarification,  but probably not for 1.1 timeframe.  Might be a documentation issue.

David Pooley

David's original mail



Yves’s reply & Observation


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