RE: [xliff] Re: a case for "finished" as a valid value for state

[Enda McDonnell <EndaMcD@alchemysoftware.ie>]

Title:

Hi guys,

I see a definite need for keeping 'signed-off'

Signed off to me means that the translation (and perhaps size information) have been reviewed and accepted for the particular use in which it is signed off (Eg. a particular button in a particular dialog).  It does not necessarily mean that the translation/co-ords would be suitable anywhere else.

The approved attribute in a trans-unit indicates that the translation has been approved and could be used elsewhere.  i.e. it is an acceptable target for the source.

 

I think that if we have a translation state attribute, we need the values 'needs-translation', needs-review' and 'signed-off' at a minimum.

I could certainly still sleep at night if we removed the 'approved' attribute.

 

Cheers,
Enda

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Reid [mailto:JREID@novell.com]
Sent: 10 April 2003 23:39
To: bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: a case for "finished" as a valid value for state

Hi Bryan,

 

Thanks. I agree that it is hair-splitting. I also like your definitions of the terms. I want 'final' to indicate definitive and unalterable. However, I jus remembered that we have the approved attribute in trans-unit and bin-unit that, "Indicates whether a translation is final," according to the spec. I'm not sure exactly how that affects this discussion but it seems to remove the need for 'signed-off'.

thanks,

john