[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Translating XLIFF 1.2
Hello, 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). Thanks, Bryan -----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. Regards, Rodolfo -- 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: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]