RE: [xliff] RE: How to translate text within G tags?

Fredrik,

Thank you for your insights. I’m using XSLT to extract & merge XLIFF with a skeleton. In fact, for convenience I use XLIFF 1.1 for the skeleton too. The original content is XHTML and XML. The <g> tag seems natural for inline tags and assures that the merged content will be well-formed. I would be concerned that <bpt> and <ept> might not match correctly. For example,

ORIGINAL SOURCE

Italic texts starts in the middle of

first sentence. Italics ends after the second sentence.

XLIFF SOURCE

<source>Italic texts starts <bpt id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'/><btp id='b1' ctype='x-html-b'/>in the middle of

first sentence<ept id='b1' ctype='x-html-b'/>. Italics ends after the second sentence.</ept id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'></source>

XLIFF TARGET

<target>Italic texts starts <bpt id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'/><btp id='b1' ctype='x-html-b'/>in the middle of

first sentence<ept id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'/><ept id='b1' ctype='x-html-b'/>. <bpt id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'/><btp id='b1' ctype='x-html-b'/>Italics ends after the second sentence.<ept id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'/></target>

MERGED TRANSLATION

Italic texts starts in the middle of

first sentence. Italics ends after the second sentence.

Notice that and overlap and that a closing is missing even though the contents of the <target> tag are well-formed.

I share some of the same feelings about the ‘id’ attribute in <trans-unit>. I was using it to reference back to the skeleton and it was not unique. Then I noticed that the ‘xid’ attribute is used to reference <trans-unit> or <bin-unit> elements, which I thought would be tenuous because of the lack of uniqueness. In conversations with Rodolfo, it came to light that the ‘id’ attribute of TU and BU must, in fact, be unique within the <file> element. It’s implied in the spec, but not explicit. Realizing that, I couldn’t use it to reference the skeleton, so I’m left with assigning an arbitrary ‘id’ value because it’s required and either using a custom attribute (XLIFF 1.1+) or overloading ‘resname’ in XLIFF 1.0.

Perhaps we should change the spec to not require the ‘id’ attribute, similar to <group>. In XSLT, I’m left with using generate-id(), which produces unseemly values like ‘ID3F2D83’ in most XML processors or using an extension to run JavaScript to assign a sequence number, for example, 1, 2, 3, etc.

I’m using ‘id’ in <g> to reference the skeleton. I’m concerned that segmentation will cause problems with referencing the skeleton. To illustrate, please consider the example from above.

ORIGINAL SOURCE

Italic texts starts in the middle of

first sentence. Italics ends after the second sentence.

XLIFF SOURCE

<source>Italic texts starts <g id='1' ctype='x-html-i'><g id='2' ctype='x-html-b'>in the middle of

first sentence</g>. Italics ends after the second sentence.</g></source>

where ‘1’ reference and ‘2’ references .

XLIFF TARGET SEGMENTED

<target>Italic texts starts <g id='1' ctype='x-html-i'><g id='2' ctype='x-html-b'>in the middle of first sentence</g></g>. <g id='1' ctype='x-html-i'><g id='2' ctype='x-html-b'>Italics ends after the second sentence.</g></g> </target>

Note that the tags are duplicated so there are two <g> tags with id=’1’ and two with id=’2’. There are two <g> tags that map to one in the skeleton and two to one . This scenario precludes merging the target text with the skeleton for inline tags that have been duplicated as a result of segmentation or reordering. Perhaps the target text should not be merged with the skeleton, but simply reconstructed. This would be a blending of the minimal (with skeleton) and maximal (no skeleton for inline tags) approach.

The conversion to TMX seems worth considering too.

Fortunately, none of these issues seem insurmountable. It’s mostly a matter of clearing up ambiguities as we resolve interoperability issues and establish best practices.

Regards,

Doug Domeny

Software Analyst

Ektron, Inc.

+1 603 594-0249 x212

http://www.ektron.com

From: Corneliusson, Fredrik [mailto:Fredrik.Corneliusson@lionbridge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:15 AM
To: bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com; ddomeny@ektron.com; rodolfo@heartsome.net
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: How to translate text within G tags?

Hello,
I just joined and this is my first post!

My XLIFF experience is mostly as a XLIFF Editor/filter programmer (Transolution).

I must say that from my point of view I much prefer the <bpt/ept way of wrapping inline tags, and if the editor has tag checking it's easy to check that they are valid.

I had the same problem with deciphering the use of <g tag from the spec as Rodolfo, and until I read the "XLIFF 1.2 Representation Guide for HTML" I was hoping I never had to deal with them as containing translatable content. XLIFF is quite a lot to digest and the <g tag really doubles the effort as it breaks the simple logic that can be used on a flat structure for translatable content. Also at some time you will need to convert XLIFF to TMX and then you need to convert it to <bpt/ept anyway. Using ph/bpt/ept gives you a very generic and straight forward approach and you preserve the original source format information exactly as it is and you can treat all formats the same.

That said I can see why people like the <g approach. It's easier to wrap in existing translation tools and process with XSLT, it also looks nicer in a text editor and I suppose lessens the need for skeleton files.

I have implementation question regarding the <g tag, in the XLIFF documentation the specification of the g-tags "id" attribute is different to that of the ph/bpt/ept:
ph-tag:
The required id attribute is used to identify the <ph> inline code
g-tag:
The required id attribute is used to reference the replaced code in the skeleton file.

Does this mean that there can be <g and <ph tags with the same id in a segment? And what if there is no skeleton file?

This brings me to a general complaint about the XLIFF spec, it is very vague and leaves a lot of room for personal taste and/or misunderstandings. This makes if hard to create a generic editor that works with XLIFF's in the wild.
For example TU's have required ID attribute but it can be anything and does not even have to be unique, so why is it required in the first place?

Cheers,

Fredrik Corneliusson

From: bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com [mailto:bryan.s.schnabel@exgate.tek.com]
Sent: den 7 mars 2006 01:26
To: ddomeny@ektron.com; rodolfo@heartsome.net
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] RE: How to translate text within G tags?

Hi Doug,

I thought about this when I wrote that portion of the HTML profile.

From a philosophical view, I strongly think I bpt/ept should only be used in XLIFF files that are derived from non-markup formats (RTF, for example).

I really don't like the idea of using bpt/ept on XLIFF files derived from HTML, XHTML, or XML files. I see "begin paired tag" and "end paired tag" as an artificial device. It could easily lead to malformed XML on the conversion from XLIFF back to HTML.

Assuming the source file is well formed, it would be a shame to have to delimit inline elements in an artificial way. If <g tags are defined in the spec in such a way that they are thought to be for non-translatable text, I would vote to either update the specification, or come up with a new element for identifying translatable inline elements in <target elements.

Thanks to Doug and Rodolfo for brining this issue to light,

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Domeny [mailto:ddomeny@ektron.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:29 PM
To: 'Rodolfo M. Raya'
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] RE: How to translate text within G tags?

Rodolfo, others,

Yes, I can see where <g> could be interpreted as containing only non-translatable codes.

I based my use of them on the HTML profile document (see below).

I’ve copied the rest of the XLIFF cmte for their input.

Should the HTML profile be revised to use bpt/ept instead of <g> for inline elements?

3.1.4. Inline Elements

In most cases, inline elements are very well suited to be mapped to <g>. The value of their ctype attribute should be a concatenation of 'x-html-' and the name of the element (in lowercase). For example:  would be mapped to <g ctype='bold'>.

Example:

In Portland, Oregon one may ski on the mountain, wind surf in the gorge, and surf in the ocean, all on the same day.

should be mapped to:

<trans-unit id='1' restype='x-html-p'>
<source xml:lang='en'>In Portland, Oregon one may <g id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'>ski</g> on the mountain, <g id='i1' ctype='bold'>wind surf</g> in the gorge, and <g id='i1' ctype='x-html-i'>surf</g> in the ocean, all on the same day.</source>
</trans-unit>

Regards,

Doug Domeny

Software Analyst

Ektron, Inc.

+1 603 594-0249 x212

http://www.ektron.com

From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rodolfo@heartsome.net]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:01 PM
To: Doug Domeny
Subject: Re: How to translate text within G tags?

Hi Doug,

As far as I know, <g> elements contain inline codes, not translatable text.

>From the specs: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xliff/documents/xliff-specification.htm#g

<g>

Generic group placeholder - The <g> element is used to replace any inline code of the original document that has a beginning and an end, does not overlap other paired inline codes, and can be moved within its parent structural element.

To me, this means that <g> is used to wrap moveable inline code and for "inline code" I understand tags inherent to the formatting of the document, i.e. "\i" and "\i0" to mark start and end of italics in RTF or "" and "" for the same purpose in HTML. IMO, only the formatting portion can be enclosed in <g>. Notice that <g> cannot contain any element with translatable text inside.

In your example I would enclose the text "no need to download again in a <bpt>/<ept> pair.

According to the introduction of the specs, XLIFF "borrows" elements from TMX and you can read a clear example of handling italics in TMX at http://www.lisa.org/standards/tmx/tmx.html#ContentMarkup_Rules

If you consider <g> as a black box with translatable text that can be moved, the translatable text that it contains may end at any location in the translated segment. The result can be horrible.

Think on RTF documents that when converted to XLIFF contains tags in the middle of a word in the source text. Most of the times those tags are originated in change tracking and signal the correction of a spelling error. Translators usually place those tags at the end of the segment or after the corresponding word in their translations but never in the middle of the equivalent word in the target language. This is the typical use case for <g> tags.

Best regards,
Rodolfo

On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 17:20 -0500, Doug Domeny wrote:

Rodolfo,

While testing with the XLIFF Editor, I couldn’t find a way to translate text between <g> tags.

For example,

How would a translator translate the phrase “not need to download again”?

The XLIFF is:

<target state="needs-translation">Before you can use eWebEditPro, it must be downloaded into your browser. When you click the <g id="2" ctype="bold">Install Now</g>button at the bottom of this page, eWebEditPro will be automatically downloaded and installed. This process may take several minutes depending on the speed of your network connection. Once downloaded, eWebEditPro will <g id="4" ctype="italic">not need to download again</g> unless upgrading to a newer version.</target>

Regards,

Doug Domeny

Software Analyst

Ektron, Inc.

+1 603 594-0249 x212

http://www.ektron.com

--
The information in this e-mail is intended strictly for the addressee, without prejudices, as a confidential document. Should it reach you, not being the addressee, it is not to be made accessible to any other unauthorised person or copied, distributed or disclosed to any other third party as this would constitute an unlawful act under certain circumstances, unless prior approval is given for its transmission. The content of this e-mail is solely that of the sender and not necessarily that of Heartsome.

xliff message

3.1.4. Inline Elements