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] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module


To be clear: …then perhaps we could add it – “it” means <mda:metadata>.

 

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 4:20 PM
To: Dr. David Filip; bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module

 

I have a related question brought on by this statement:

 

>> In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.

 

At Microsoft, we have *extensive* terminology data that goes beyond simple Term | Translation | Definition. We have things like part-of-speech, usage notes, product version, etc. If we cannot carry all of our glossary information together in the Metadata module currently, then perhaps we could add it to the Glossary module so we can. After all, I can embed <mda:metadata> in the <matches> module, why not the <glossary> module as well?

 

ryan

 

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 6:21 AM
To: bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #04 - No PRs in metadata module

 

Dear Bryan, [I am quite sure that you are the owner although I cannot lookup the wiki right now :-)]

 

If there are no PRs, no one will be ever able to delete the module data. This is just the gravest consequence.

 

Other than that, PRs (and definitions as needed) should be provided that could support a 'naive implementer', i.e. someone without the L10n tribal knowledge. Most importantly the module specification should state in unambiguous terms that the metadata module (as a native extensibility mechanism) MUST not compete for functionality with any features defined in the current version of core or modules.

In particular, it should be made clear that mda MUST NOT be misused for carrying matches or glossary entries.

 

Other issues with this module:

[Please start separate threads if you want to discuss the minor issues..]

 

04.01)

type is a required attribute of <meta> but the spec (neither core nor module) does not contain the definition and or standard values for type IN metadata. (Only values for inlines are specified in core)

 

Cheers

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

 



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