RE: [xliff] RE: XLIFF 2.0

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@translate.com>]

Hi Klemens,

Some additional feedback to your questions:


> 2) I noted that there is a XLIFF Inline Markup SC but no 
> documents seem to be produced. Is this correct?

As Bryan noted, currently we work on the wiki.
See http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/OneContentModel
And http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/OneContentModel/Comparison


> ... I always was a little bit astonished that TMX uses (partially)
> different inline mark-ups than XLIFF

It's actually XLIFF that uses partially the TMX elements (TMX was out long before XLIFF).
The reason for the differences: Both formats were created in different TCs with (partially) different people with (partially) different ideas. And as Bryan said, one of the goals for 2.0 is to try to provide a more general markup that can be used in different containers.


> 3) Segmentation: Is it intended to change this segmentation 
> indicator from mrk to some more meaningful name?

See the XSD file attached to http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201104/msg00052.html for the latest 2.0 work-in-progress. It includes the segmentation model we are currently looking at for 2.0.


> 8) Term matching: In some cases it might be interesting 
> to markup special parts of a segment (e.g. a group of words) as a term.
> And also with a reference to the target. One could use "mrk" element 
> for that  but looking at the attributes there are many restrictions.

The SC is also looking at specializing more the elements in the segment, instead of using a general <mrk>, when it would be relevant. There are however, different possible solutions, using ITS for example, or other methods.

> I have to add I do not really understand what non-XLIFF attributes 
> in " mid, ts, comment, non-XLIFF attributes " really refers too.

They refer to extensions: when you see "non-XLIFF attributes" you can use attributes belonging to another namespace than the XLIFF 1.2 namespace.

Hope this helps,
Cheers,
-yves