Annotations using <mrk> alter source text.
If the tool that creates the XLIFF decorates <source> with <mrk>, fine. All other tools used later in the translation chain must preserve them, even if they cannot take advantage of those elements.
If the tool that creates the XLIFF doesn’t add <mrk> elements, then <mrk> elements should not be present when the XLIFF returns to the original tool for generating the translated file.
As we discussed the other day during the meeting, changes done by a second tool should be temporary and the original <source> restored before moving to the next tool/stage.
I proposed a solution for annotations some time ago that used offsets stored as attributes in an element outside <source> or <target>. Annotations don’t need to alter the original source. They don’t need to be inline elements at all, they can be optional elements that live in a module.
A tool that creates an XLIFF file should be able to receive a translated file with the same structure it generated. There should not be any extra element added during the translation process. Neither in <source> nor in <target>.
Normalizing spaces means modifying spaces. It is a change that should not be allowed in any stage if the xml:space attribute is set to “preserve”.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 9:37 PM
Subject: RE: [xliff] Source read only or modifiable?
If we were to make the source content “read-only” I think it would be also important to allow the addition/removing of annotations in the source (<mrk>). There are many use cases where multi-steps processes enrich the source with such metadata, and like with segmentation, it does not change the “content”.
Also: would a content *not* marked with xml:space=’preserve’ be considered modified if it gets normalized? For example go from:
<source>Some text and more text.</source>
I started a thread some time ago about making source read-only or not and would like to revisit the topic.
In the last meeting we had some kind of agreement on considering that segmentation does not change source text. Segmentation only distributes source text in one or more segments without altering it.
We also agreed that replacing span-like inline tags with equivalents in the form of start/end markers may not constitute a modification of source text as long as the replacing operation doesn’t lose data.
If we consider source text as read-only in the specification, the two operations mentioned above can be declared as allowed in the relevant processing expectation section.
Keeping in mind that segmentation and certain tag replacements are not to be considered modifications of source, should we consider source text read-only or should we allow modifications during the translation process?
Rodolfo M. Raya firstname.lastname@example.org