[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Source read only or modifiable?
> -----Original Message----- > From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf > Of Yves Savourel > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:00 AM > To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xliff] Source read only or modifiable? Hi, > > 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”. > > The question was: "Would a content *not* marked with > xml:space=’preserve’ be considered modified if it gets normalized?" (in the > context of having a "read-only" source). If xml:space is not set to "preserve", then spaces are meaningless from XML point of view and normalization does not affect content. That's something defined in a level above XLIFF. > > Annotations using <mrk> alter source text. > > No more than <segment> elements. An annotation does not represent anything included in the original document. It is neither original text nor formatting information that needs to be preserved. > > > 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. > > I disagree. Like with <segment>, the merging tool can strip the <mrk>. By > definition they are not part of the content to merge. If that's not part of the original content to merge, then it is not an essential inline element. > This is how <mrk> is defined in 1.2 ("The <mrk> element is usually not > generated by the extraction tool and it is not part of the tags used to merge > the XLIFF file back into its original format.") and I certainly hope that the > same principle will carry over in 2.0. If it is not generated by the extraction tool, then it should not be in core. It must live in an optional module. > > 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. > > We discussed this when talking about inline codes (e.g. converting text to > inline codes, i.e. adding codes). We were not talking about <mrk> at that > time. We did not mention element names but we talked about elements added to <source> and <mrk> is an element. > > > 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. > > Your idea was discussed in the Inline Markup SC and unanimously found > impractical for an XML exchange format. > > If XLIFF was a binary format in the other hands... But it's not. > > > > There should not be any extra element added during the translation > > process. Neither in <source> nor in <target>. > > I disagree. We must be able to add/remove inline codes in the target. > It's a basic requirement. Then the tool creating the XLIFF file should be able to indicate whether those additions are acceptable or not. This can be indicated with an attribute at <file> level. The original tool should have a way to express that <target> must have the same structure as the original <source> (that should be the default case IMO). It also should be able to express that alterations to <source> are not allowed. And, for completeness sake, it should be able to indicate whether re-segmentation is allowed. Regards, Rodolfo -- Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]