Re: [xliff] XLIFF and TM, Glossary, Segmenation Rules - Was: RE: [xliff] ULI

[Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com>]

I also have concern with the same statement.
If we want to be completely independent of Unicode, let's consider redefining
UTF-8, 16, 32 as well since that is how content is commonly encoded when
exchanged. On top of that, we should also redefine BCP 47 in case we ever
needed to tell each other which locale and scripts we are exchanging the
content with. 

Bottom line, interdependency to reputable
standard organization is a good thing. Having to be "contingent"
upon not-so-active standard organization is a bad thing. A kitchen-and-sink/cover-it-all
standard and implementation has not proven to work well in my programming
experiences. I quite frankly disagree with the approach. Referencing another
standard within the context is a better method. 

Best regards, 

Helena Shih Chapman
Globalization Technologies and Architecture
+1-720-396-6323 or T/L 938-6323
Waltham, Massachusetts




From:      
 "Lieske, Christian"
<christian.lieske@sap.com>
To:      
 "Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>, "xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 05/10/2011 02:13 AM
Subject:    
   [xliff] XLIFF
and TM, Glossary, Segmenation Rules - Was: RE: [xliff] ULI

---

Hi Rodolfo,
 
I have some concerns related
to your comment/proposal
 
RR> If we define our own
formats for TM, glossary and segmentation rules, we would be independent
from LISA, ETSI, Unicode and others. 
 
Here are some of them:
 
1.       The
charter of the XLIFF TC delineates the TC’s scope. We would have to check
that the charter covers the proposal.
2.       The
bandwidth and the expertise of the TC members may not allow the comprehensive
coverage/scope that you propose.
3.       “define
our own formats” may lead to a situation in which requirements are not
captured properly, and synergies and economies of scale are not possible.
 
Best regards,
Christian
 
From: Rodolfo M. Raya [mailto:rmraya@maxprograms.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 3. Mai 2011 18:54
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] ULI
 
Hi Helena,
 
In the few minutes I requested
for after the meeting I proposed an idea: include in XLIFF 2.0 a set of
optional modules for holding TM data (something like TMX), glossary data,
segmentation rules (something along the lines of SRX).
 
A translation job requires
multiple files, source documents, XLIFF (or equivalent), TMX files and
glossaries. What I´m proposing would reduce the number of files involved,
by including some of the usual exchange files into an XLIFF 2.0 document.

 
If we define our own formats
for TM, glossary and segmentation rules, we would be independent from LISA,
ETSI, Unicode and others. 
 
Those containers would be
absolutely optional but could help in interoperability if developers have
to deal with just on technical committee defining exchange rules.
 
Best regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya  
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Maxprograms    
 http://www.maxprograms.com
 
From: Helena S Chapman [mailto:hchapman@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 1:27 PM
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: Lucia.Morado; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] ULI
 
Forgot to mention IBM concerns: 

- Integration of memory specification in under XLIFF or separately thru
Unicode ULI TC. Unless we can do the following, We are not entirely convinced
TMX should not live on its own: 
        * <trans_unit> be limited to one entry
per segment and not more 
        * restructure the <source> and <target>
against the TMX <tuv xml:lang="xx"> tags. However, I do
not see a need of specifying more than one language pair at a time. That
is something never used in practice in TMX
        * fold the <note> and <prop> tags
together 
        * TMX needs <note> on <tuv> level
because the translator may have added comments are to why the text was
translated this way 





From:        Helena
S Chapman/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
To:        "Lucia.Morado"
<Lucia.Morado@ul.ie>
Cc:        xliff@lists.oasis-open.org,
"Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>
Date:        05/03/2011
12:18 PM 
Subject:        RE:
[xliff] ULI

---

As mentioned, I'd like to call an off-line meeting. Please write me if
you are interested. Agenda: 

- I have some idea of the initial focus area: SRX and TMX related. Specifically,
       1. TR29 specifying the definition and types of textual
segmentation rules that applies across the entire life cycle of content,
not just during translation phase.
       2. SRX being the interchange standards for #1.
       3. CLDR to publish language specific segmentation
behavior. Following the core/module concept, the specialty module would
not be expected to be 100% interoperable. However, core should.
       4. Sort out whether there is a need for memory specific
standards outside XLIFF. I have a list of concerns and issues to share.
See below. 
- Any of the above does not belong in Unicode? I need your input on what
to stay out of or mind my own business and WHY? What type of interaction
point would be needed between the two? 

I plan to call this meeting soon before I kick off the ULI activity on
the Unicode side. Please write me by noon EDT Wed May 4th with a few availability
options and I will send invitation shortly after. I will not be able to
accommodate all the requirements, my apologies in advance.

Best regards, 

Helena Shih Chapman
Globalization Technologies and Architecture
+1-720-396-6323 or T/L 938-6323
Waltham, Massachusetts




From:        "Lucia.Morado"
<Lucia.Morado@ul.ie>
To:        "Yves
Savourel" <ysavourel@translate.com>,
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:        05/03/2011
10:30 AM 
Subject:        RE:
[xliff] ULI

---

I see Helena as the current TC officer, she might clarify this in
today's meeting. http://unicode.org/uli/

Lucia

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@translate.com]
> Sent: 03 May 2011 13:01
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xliff] ULI
> 
> FYI:
> 
> A new TC at the Unicode Consortium
>
http://unicode-inc.blogspot.com/2011/04/unicode-consortium-announces.htm
l
> 
> Interesting.
> So, what happens when something published by the ULI TC and something
> published by the XLIFF TC are contradictory?
> 
> 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