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: FW: [xliff] Element simpleNote

Is it really the intent to to implement specific XLIFF features using elements of another standard? It is appropriate to pick and choose one or two items from this standard, and a couple for another standard, and one from another standard to make up the XLIFF specification? It seems that it could become difficult to manage all of the interdependencies and if a referenced standard changed or removed a function, XLIFF could be forced to change just for this reason.


Corporate Globalization Tool Development
EMail: waltersd@us.ibm.com
Phone: (507) 253-7278, T/L:553-7278, Fax: (507) 253-1721

CHKPII: http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2011
TM file formats: http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2083
TM markups: http://w3-03.ibm.com/globalization/page/2071

Inactive hide details for Yves Savourel ---07/21/2011 11:49:31 AM---Hi all,Yves Savourel ---07/21/2011 11:49:31 AM---Hi all,


Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>




07/21/2011 11:49 AM


FW: [xliff] Element simpleNote

Hi all,

See below one contribution to the simpleNote discussion that I forgot to forward.


From: Felix Sasaki
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 8:11 PM
Re: [xliff] Element simpleNote

Hi Yves,

again, feel free to forward this.

My proposal to resolve this would be: use the definition of the ITS note at http://www.w3.org/TR/its/#locNote-definition
this is independent of the actual usage, as an attribute / element / with or without XPath.
Say then that you implement the definition following ITS locally, but not ITS globally, for the reasons about XPath you mentioned below.

The value of the above would be that we have clear paths of conformance: an implementation of ITS in XLIFF conforms to the definition and the local implementation, but it potentially adds another, non XPath based option.


2011/7/19 Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
> a. Why can't we use existing standards such as W3C ITS in XLIFF?
> If I remember correctly, we have "Reuse" as one of our XLIFF
> 2.0 Mantras.

If we go with ITS, for a "simple note" we can use the its:locNote attribute without anything else. It goes on the element you want to annotate. We could still control which elements allow it or not using the schema. If we were to match the current locations we would allow its:locNote on <segment>, <unit>, <source> and <target>.

Two possible drawbacks:

1) An attribute value cannot have a rich content (formatting, multi paragraphs, etc.) But maybe that is not an issue with a *simple* note.

2) Since all the <source> (or <target>) elements have no common parent (they have a common grand-parent), we would not be able to assign a note to all source or all target at once by specifying it in <unit>.

On ITS overall:

I would think twice before using any XPath-based options. The main issue with this is that it pretty much forces the use of a DOM-based parser for XLIFF, which could be a problem with large documents.



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