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: RE: [xliff] Translating XLIFF 1.2


I've followed this thread with interest, but I must confess, I'm no expert in segmentation. So I have a request. Please provide, if possible, a summary (paragraph or so) that succinctly expresses the contradiction in opinion on this topic. I will then add it to the next agenda in hopes that we may work toward a useful solution for XLIFF 2.0 (or XLIFF 1.2 errata, if appropriate).



-----Original Message-----
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:32 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Translating XLIFF 1.2

Hi Yves,

FWIW, I don't use <group>/<trans-unit> to indicate segmentation at all. I mentioned this possibility simply as an example. From my experience, there is no need to indicate segmentation in XLIFF files. 


Rodolfo M. Raya   <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms      http://www.maxprograms.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:21 PM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] Translating XLIFF 1.2
> Hi Rodolfo,
> OK, I've answered most of the comments below.
> But this is getting old and life is too short to waste it on this type
> of discussion.
> The 1.2 specification has clearly the intent of defining one
> representation for segmentation and that is <seg-source>. Even I can
> see that, and I'm way less smart than you are Rodolfo.
> Sure, the <seg-source> model is imperfect (as your custom model), but
> it's what the consensus of the TC ended up being.
> Sure the text could be better, but it's clear enough for several tools
> to have implement it and be interoperable.
> For technical reason, you choose to implement it another way. The
> result is a valid document, but also a document not really
> interoperable with XLIFF tools as far as manipulating the segments.
> You can try to explain how one can segment without using <seg-source>
> by pointing at what you see as imprecisions in the text of the
> specification. But none of them changes the bottom line: while <seg-
> source> may not be perfect it is the only way representing segmentation
> is described in XLIFF 1.2.
> What sadden me is not that you don't agree with <seg-source> and went
> another way. It is that you are trying to prove that an XLIFF 1.2
> documents can be seen as segmented but not use <seg-source>. It's just
> not true.
> I would have no problem if you were saying: "I don't like <seg-source>
> because there are things important for my tool that I can't do with
> that model. So I choose to use <group>/<trans-unit> instead. And yes, I
> suppose, based on the 1.2 specification if I wanted my documents to
> show other tools that they are segmented I should use <seg-source>, but
> that means to have one segment per <seg-source> and that look silly to
> me, so I don't use it, and that means my document is not really
> interoperable for segmentation, and so be it."
> Then we could move on to a new the discussion on getting a better
> segmentation representation for 2.0 :)
> Now the comments (probably useless, but since I wrote them...):
> >> The problem is that because such file is not following
> >> the way XLIFF represents segmentation, the tool won't be
> >> able to see the different 'segments' as part of the same
> >> paragraph, and therefore won't be able to manipulate them
> >> as needed (e.g. let the translators join/resplit)
> >
> > That's wrong. I've written tools that are able to merge/split
> > segments without requiring <seg-source> or custom namespaces.
> Because your tool is using its own segmentation model.
> I'm sure anyone could do the same, but the problem is that a tool
> following the XLIFF segmentation representation cannot *know* it should
> see some <group> has being a paragraph in your document.
> >> Segmentation is represented by <seg-source> (there is no
> >> fudging about that: I'm just reading the specification),
> >> therefore if it's not in the file, it means the file is not
> >> segmented.
> >
> > That's again wrong. Nothing in the specs says that if a file does
> > not use <seg-source> it is not segmented.
> If interoperability was based on what is *not* described in the
> specification, there would be no standards :)
> You cannot tell an XLIFF processor what is a segment if there is no
> <seg-source> because that is (for the Nth time) the only described way
> to represent segmentation in XLIFF 1.2.
> Regardless what your <source> intends to represent, if it does not have
> <seg-source>: it cannot be viewed as segmented by XLIFF tools.
> > Segmentation can be applied to the source text and
> > the resulting segments stored in <source> elements.
> Please, show us the text of the specification that says it is the way
> XLIFF represents segmentation.
> > Where is it written in the specs that segmentation must be
> > done using <seg-source>?
> > The specification uses vague terms like "may be",
> > "can", "typically" and "generally". It does not define
> > what a segmented or unsegmented file is.
> "...it may be important for the user agent to break down the content of
> the <source> into smaller runs of text":
> That "may be" refers to applying segmentation (it's optional), not how
> the segmentation is represented.
> "...content of the <seg-source> is generally the translatable text,
> typically divided into segments through the use of <mrk mtype="seg">
> elements..."
> Those "generally" and "typically" refer to the content of <seg-source>.
> They don't say that <seg-source> is generally used, or typically used
> and that you can use something else than <seg-source>. They refer to
> its content.
> And, yes: it wouldn't hurt to remove those two terms.
> But, no: they don't open the door for not using <seg-source>.
> > You indirectly admitted, the use of <seg-source>
> > is optional. So, why do you say that applications
> > that don't use <seg-source> don't follow the
> > specification?
> Not indirectly (you make me look shifty :) I said so very directly:
> <seg-source> is an optional element in XLIFF.
> The reason why it is optional is because *representing segmentation* is
> optional.
> Not because if you represent segmentation there is another official
> option than <seg-source>.
> >> Using that method is just like using a custom
> >> namespace with an non-XLIFF element that stored
> >> segment boundaries: It gives us a valid file,
> >> but uses a proprietary way of represent segmentation.
> >
> > This statement is incorrect. The use of <source>/<target>
> > is not a proprietary way of doing things.
> The statement is correct: Representing segmentation with
> <group>/<trans-unit> is not the way described by the XLIFF
> specification, therefore it's a custom way, and it is as non-
> interoperable as using a custom namespace: other tools have to assume
> the text is not segmented.
> > It's a way allowed in the specification. I strongly sugest
> > you to read the definitions of <source> and <target>.
> > Neither of them mention the word "segmentation" or
> > <seg-source>. Those elements are described as the container
> > for translatable text and translation.
> Indeed: They don't talk about segmentation at all, so why are you
> inferring <source> can be used to represent the result of segmentation,
> while there is a section dedicated to that topic?
> >> The bottom line is that there is only one way
> >> to represent segmentation in XLIFF, it's the <seg-source> model.
> >
> > There isn't only one way. There are many.
> > I already gave you an example.
> A example is not a description coming from the specification.
> As far as I can tell there is only one model described: <seg-source>.
> > For start, there is no real need to "represent" segmentation
> > in an XLIFF file. XLIFF is a container for translatable material.
> > The required basics are holders for text to be translated and
> > holders for the corresponding translation. The standard provides
> > that in <source> and <target>.
> > If there is a need to represent segmentation,
> > it can be done using <group> as I explained before.
> Many models *could* be used.
> But the 1.2 specification choose only one: <seg-source>. So to be
> interoperable a tool should use that one.
> > I see here a clear case of poor writing that reminds
> > me the problem with SRX that required releasing a new
> > version of the standard. The original authors failed
> > to express their ideas in writing.
> Don't get me started back on SRX :) You still have not explained why
> the 1.0 example has duplicated rules if cascading is implicit. But it's
> a dead topic I don't have time to go back to.
> > The intention of the people that added segmentation
> > section was clear only for the authors. It was not
> > properly described in the specification document.
> > The use of <seg-source> was left as optional when
> > it should have been described as a required step
> > in the translation process.
> What is optional is to have or not a representation of a segmentation,
> not to use or not <seg-source> when you have to represent segmentation.
> As for making it mandatory, I strongly disagree: XLIFF should allow to
> have un-segmented entries.
> Segmentation is a complex operation, and requiring translation tools to
> do it would be just wrong.
> > All the justifications and explanations that you
> > added in this mailing list are missing in the
> > specification document.
> Actually I didn't try to justify anything.
> I merely tried to explained the error of you ways :)
> > The authors of the segmentation section did not
> > consider that if something is optional, those that
> > don't need it might not implement it.
> I don't know who is the author(s) but I'm sure s/he/they meant exactly
> that: <seg-source> is optional so if segmentation is not needed the
> element can be not implemented.
> > If representing segmentation using <seg-source> was
> > considered essential for interoperability, it should
> > have been written.
> > The specification lacks a clear explanation of the
> > official workflow expected to be present in XLIFF
> > based tools.
> It seems having a whole section describing it makes it important
> enough.
> But I agree also: there are many things that could use better wording,
> more implementation notes in XLIFF. Hopefully we can make 2.0 much
> better in that respect.
> > If the intention is to require the use
> > of <seg-source>, then "it may be important" is a
> > poor choice of words for the introduction of
> > Segmentation section.
> You are citing out of context making look it applies to <seg-source> :)
> "...it may be important for the user agent to break down the content of
> the <source> into smaller runs of text (for example, sentences)."
> This refers to applying segmentation (the fact that it may be important
> for some tools), not "it may be important to use <seg-source> if you
> are representing segmentation".
> Cheers,
> -ys
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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