Subject: Re: [xliff] Best way to mark up an image in XLIFF 2.0?
Apologies, I have been too busy to participate in XLIFF discussions but some things are too important not to comment. I appraciate the work of the committee but I concur with Rodolfo and Bryan. Many of the current proposals worry me: you cannot map different ontological entities onto the same representation. Any inline notation that includes in PCDATA any form of data that is not to be translated is at best misguided.
My rule on this is very simple:
1. All file formats can be rendered as XML.
2. Within XML text there are only two types of inline elements: those that have content and those that do not have content
3. Inline elements can further be divided into those that are truly inline and those that are sub-flows
In other words <g> </g> and <x/> are all that is required for inline content. I have been doing this for 10 years - it works and I have never ever found any limitations to this rule.
The other things that worry me about some of the directions that XLIFF 2.0 is taking is trying to load workflow and state data onto XLIFF. I would counsel that ANY type of information that is not directly linked to the interchange of translatable data should be held outside of XLIFF.
The problem you face is that current inline elements are not XSL friendly and interfere with the goal you have.I think the fact that the solution is not XSL friendly is just a side effect of the fact that the solution requires an XML hack. Sorry if this is worded too strongly. But if we use an XML vocabulary for our Localization Interchange File Format; and if our use case has XML source as its source; and if we say the way we recommend you store your source XML is to escape it; then it seems to me that we are prescribing an XML "no no" as a best practice. I don't blame people for rolling their eyes and saying "here he goes again." I guess if I'm the only one who finds this distasteful, I must be in the minority. And maybe I should just stop complaining. I guess the real test is to see if members of our community care one way or the other. I kind of feel like I'm representing people who see a need (for example) to include XLIFF in things like the DITA OT. XML friendliness is needed in cases like that. That said, I could certainly hold my nose and make the <data id="222"><img src=""></data> approach work in XSL. And I could adapt my DITA-XLIFF Roundtrip for the DITA OT (for example) work okay. So luckily for me, it is just a philosophical gripe. Thanks for putting up with my semi-annual XML friendliness rants. ________________________________ From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org] on behalf of Rodolfo M. Raya [email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 3:53 AM To: Dr. David Filip Cc: Yves Savourel; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [xliff] Best way to mark up an image in XLIFF 2.0? ">" doesn't need to be escaped in XML. Regards, Rodolfo Sent from my iPad On Oct 3, 2012, at 7:48 AM, "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie<mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie>> wrote: ">" should be ">" in your data example :-) Dr. David Filip ======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 mailto: email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Yves Savourel <email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote: < --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org