RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 Core

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

I hope nobody is worried about my uncharacteristic silence on this thread (or maybe celebrating it ;-).

I'm following with much interest and I like the direction it is going. I want to manage/look after an important side issue Rodolfo mentioned. We will certainly need to think about the notion of a core-namespace vs. module-namespaces, all falling under the *official* XLIFF namespace. I'll take this on. So let's keep the thread going, and I'll sign up for tracking the administrative side-issues as they  arise.

- Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:07 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 Core

Hi Yves,

SDLXLIFF files are plagued of custom elements around segments. I added multiple <ignorable> before and after a segment to support that. 

We could have matches at <unit> and at <segment> level but I'm not sure it is necessary. If you have a match at <unit> level generated from a paragraph, it can be segmented with the same mechanism you use to split the extracted text into <segments>.

It's OK for me to move <match> and <note> to a different namespace, as long as it is an official namespace defined by the XLIFF TC. 

I can extend the XML Schema to include <xliff> and <file> elements. If there is agreement, I would create a separate schema for <match> and <note> and another one for a generic <inline> element (it would be a placeholder until the subcommittee finishes the definition of inline markup).

I think that the core should not have <header> or equivalent. Do we agree?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:25 AM
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 Core
> 
> Hi Rodolfo, all,
> 
> Thanks for the XSD, it's very handy.
> 
> I like the more specific <match> instead of the all-purpose <alt-trans>.
> It makes sense to specialize the elements.
> But I don't think candidate matches should be part of the core. (Same 
> for <note>).
> To me the core would be just the data needed to extract, translate and 
> merge, with possibly a few meta-data like resname, restype, etc. that 
> could be considered as basic properties.
> 
> Another though about <match>: We probably need to handle also the 
> cases where there are match candidates offer for both the whole unit 
> and for each segment, instead of just for each segment. Tools like 
> WorldServer offer such feature for example.
> 
> Handling the "outside" extra spaces/codes with <ignorable> looks good.
> Do we have a case for allowing multiple <ignorable> at each ends? I 
> cannot think of any tool that would have more than one inter-segment 
> span. Not a big issue: allowing 0 or more just makes it a bit less simple to handle.
> 
> -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