[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC 5
Yves, et al., -------------------------------- re: rid and id -------------------------------- This is something we need to determine in today's conference call. The specification is not clear enough for the it to be implemented. My comments and recommendations follow: CLARIFICATION Applies to tags: bx, ex, bpt, ept It was unclear to me how the rid attribute should be used. There are two possible patterns. (1) <bx id="b1" rid="e1"/> ... <ex id="e1" rid="b1"/> or (2) <bx rid="1"/> ... <ex rid="1"/> I recommend pattern (1) because it distinguishes the role of identifier and reference to identifier. This is similar to the ID and IDREF types in DTD, but not strictly enforced because 'id' values do not have to be unique within the document. This patterns requires that both the 'id' and 'rid' attributes be required. An example or description of how to set the 'id' and 'rid' attributes is needed to be unambiguous. RECOMMENDATION Applies to tags: bx, ex, bpt, ept The 'rid' attribute should be required because it is needed to refer to the matching begin/end tag. This change is not fully compatible with XLIFF 1.0 because some documents may not have the 'rid' attribute, but I do not know how the matching pairs would be identified. The 'id' attribute is currently required and should remain required so the 'rid' attribute can refer to it. ----------------------------------- re: xml:lang ----------------------------------- I like your wording: "the values of xml:lang are expected to be the same as for the source-language and target-language, except in the case described". However, I would add "If xml:lang is used" to the front as in: "If xml:lang is used, the values of xml:lang are expected to be the same as for the source-language and target-language, except in the case described." It conveys the same meaning. To me, this is just an editorial matter, so please word it as you see fit. I had originally suggested not using xml:lang so that the XLIFF file would be smaller and to avoid redundant information. Regards, Doug Domeny Software Analyst Ektron, Inc. +1 603 594-0249 x212 http://www.ektron.com -----Original Message----- From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 5:08 PM To: ddomeny@ektron.com; Tony Jewtushenko Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xliff] Re: XLIFF 1.1 Specification Working Draft 14 - RC 5 > 2.4 Inline Elements > "These paired elements are related via their rid attributes." > I'm not sure how to use the rid attribute. Is the rid attribute set > to the value of the id attribute in the corresponding element? An > example would be very helpful. Actually, I'm also a little lost with that one too. I thought <bpt> and <ept>, as well as <bx/> and <ex/> were linked with their id attributes. The rid attribute is optional, id is mandatory. If you have more than 2 <bpt> elements, each <ept> must have a relation back to to opening counterpart, since id is the only mandatory attribute in <ept> it makes sense to use it (otherwise you end up with 99% of duplication between id and rid). I also see a problem in "Use the required id attribute to relate begin and end <g> tags." for the use of <g>. This cannot be done as there are no attribute in a closing tag. You always know which <g> element you are closing. I would use <g> for place-holder, and <bx/>/<ex/> only when they are overlapping codes. > 2.5.2 Adding Attributes > In the example, the <trans-unit id> attributes > all have the value '1'. They should be different. Oops, that one has been there for some time: my fault: a copy/paste gone bad. I would also add one comment on section 2 General structure. The end of the new paragraph about the use of xml:lang reads: "The xml:lang attribute should not be used in those elements. The exception is that <source> and <target> elements that are children of <alt-trans> may contain an xml:lang attribute of a different language than that of the source-language and target-language attributes of the <file> element." I know I'm too late to change things, but I'd like to say something for the record: I rather disagree with this: I think it would set a bad example and precedent to have a guideline going against XML internationalization practices. What we probably should say is that the values of xml:lang are expected to be the same as for the source-language and target-language, except in the case described. But saying xml:lang *should not* be use seems harmful: what if a XML-enabled but not XLIFF-enabled tool needs the language code? (like a spell-checker). In addition, such new guideline also contradicts the wording we have already decided (long ago) for source-language and target-language): "The source language can be also specified by xml:lang in each <source> element. The value of source-language and xml:lang can be different to allow having different source languages if necessary (for example in an <alt-trans> element)." Just a thought. kenavo, -yves
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]