RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for the editors #002

["Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>]

Setting xml:space="preserve" would not cause any damage when target language is Chinese, Thai or similar. It may just be meaningless.

 

Changing from SHOULD to MUST is OK for me. It would help in checking compliance.

Regards,

Rodolfo

--
Rodolfo M. Raya
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com

 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question
for the editors #002
From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 1:15 pm
To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org

Thanks Rodolfo, sounds relevant, but would we break anything in these
languages if we enforced xml:space preserve?

Anyway, as I see it we cannot use this PR for validation purposes if
it is not strict. I think that the import of this PR is that tools
must be able to check source for xml:space behavior and be eventually
able (based on some set of rules?) to replicate it in the target or
not.

Could we have a more granular specific requirement that would direct
the space preserve behavior between siblings? For instance based on
payload script.

I see that this can get hairy and we probably do not want to go into
details here.

So the simplest thing would be to say MUST unless we find a case where
this enforcement would break things.

Finally, in case it turns out that neither of the above is possible,
is the space preservation a general principle worth mentioning or just
a best practice thing?

Thanks
dF

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: david.filip@ul.ie


On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Rodolfo M. Raya <rmraya@maxprograms.com> wrote:
> Spaces may be meaningless for the target language (Chinese, Thai, etc.)
> Preserving spaces may not be necessary in all cases.
> Regards,
> Rodolfo
> --
> Rodolfo M. Raya
> Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 - dF Sanity Check of the spec - question for
> the editors #002
> From: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
> Date: Thu, October 25, 2012 11:06 am
> To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Dear Rodolfo, Yves,
>
> In Section 2.1, the second general processing requirement says
>
> When a <target> child is added to a <segment> element, the value of
> its xml:space attribute
> should be set to preserve if the xml:space attribute of the sibling
> <source> element is set to
> preserve.
>
>
> Can we list a single possibly valid reason not to preserve if the
> source is set to preserve?
> If not, we probably want to say MUST instead of SHOULD.
>
> Thanks for your attention
> dF
>
> 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: david.filip@ul.ie
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: xliff-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: xliff-help@lists.oasis-open.org

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