RE: FW: [xliff] Element simpleNote

[Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>]

Hi David, all,

> Is it really the intent 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.

For what it's worth, I think using directly other standards may be a good idea in some cases, and a bad one in others.

For example, you can imagine that, if XLIFF would hold a list of terminological entries, it may be simpler to provide the place to include some TBX-type section, than to reinvent a whole set of elements for it.

In some other cases, it may not be a good idea to use just one element/attribute to implement a feature that is deeply nested in an XLIFF structure. It has to be practical.

Note that as far as reference to a standard, I would imagine that if any other vocabulary is used in XLIFF, it would be for a given version of that standard, and that wouldn't change until XLIFF itself needs to change. I would be more worry about having to manage namespaces: many tools may not do it properly.

As for the simpleNote, and ITS in general, I think Felix's point is well put. ITS first defines data categories (i.e. features). And it offers one possible implementation of them using the ITS namespace. But the importance is to have the feature, not necessarily to implement it using the ITS namespace. As long as the one in XLIFF matches (or possibly extends) the one in ITS, ITS-driven tools can map it is using rules. In other words, an ITS-aware tool does not need to work on the ITS namespace to "understand" the feature. The semantic is more important than the syntax.

Just thinking out loud.
-yves