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: [xliff] Extensibility methods


 
 
Hi Yves,
 
FWIW, <matches> currently lives in the core, not in a module. It cannot be in a module because it depends on core elements, like <source>, <target> and inline elements.  It could be moved to a module if we define elements that duplicate the functionality of <source>, <target> and all inline codes. Notice, however, that <matches> is an optional element and is not required when the XLIFF file is created; it can be added (or not) after creating the XLIFF document.
 
The only module we have defined so far is the one that handles glossaries.
 
Data from an XLIFF module is optional. A "module" is defined as something not required to create an XLIFF file, translate it and generate a translated document.  A tool that doesn't know how to use optional module data can safely ignore it and doesn't have to maintain it. Such tool may even delete module data, as it is not required for generating a translated document.
 
If you enhance an XLIFF file by adding <glossary> elements, the user can take advantage of that data by using a tool that supports it. If the user prefers to work with a tool that cannot handle <glossary>, that doesn't interfere with the translation process and the generation of a translated document. The tool may safely delete <glossary> elements and nothing will be damaged.

It would be nice if tools preserve module data, but that is not a requirement.
 
Things that must be preserved by all tools should be part of the XLIFF core and have precise processing expectations. Even optional core elements, like <matches>, should have processing expectations that indicate whether they can be removed or not.
 
Anything not specified in the XLIFF core is by definition not essential for completing the translation cycle. In other words, disposable.
 
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya <RMRAYA@MAXPROGRAMS.COM>
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [xliff] Extensibility methods
From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Thu, May 03, 2012 1:38 pm
To: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>

Hi all,

I tend to agree with Fredrik's general assessment of metaHolder and custom namespace: one is simpler and can be handled more generically, the other is more powerful but less easy to work with generically.

Now a question (seemingly un-related, but bare with me for a while):

What are the processing expectations for an optional XLIFF module (e.g. like <matches>) for a tool that does not support that module?

Concretely, for example, if Tool A does not support <matches>, is the tool expected to try to preserve it? Is it expected to somehow set some flag on it if the segmentation changes and affect <matches>?

In other words: what type of generic processing do we expect a tool to do on the elements of the XLIFF modules it does not support?


Cheers,
-yves



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org



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