RE: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

["Schnabel, Bryan S" <bryan.s.schnabel@tektronix.com>]

Makes sense. Just as a housekeeping question, I noticed that rather than moving this item to section 3 in the wiki, you commented it out of section 2.

I'm wondering (out loud, and to everyone on the mailing list) if commenting out a proposed feature from section 2 is preferred, or if it might be better to move it to section 3, in the interest of keeping its history? I wonder if section 3's "Discarded Proposed Features" title wording has too negative a connotation?

-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2012 1:48 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Y21 - Term proposals

Hi all,

> (Y21) (Term Proposals) It seems that the proposal overlaps with the 
> glossary module. Yves will have an opportunity to further specify the 
> feature and submit it for electronic ballot.

It is related to the Glossary module, but that module is not covering all the aspects of the feature of this term-related proposal. For example, this feature was to provide a way to annotate the content rather than just list terms.

There is an equivalent mechanism in the ITS Terminology data category that will need to be integrated later one too.

Ad there are some additional discussion on terms here:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201211/msg00110.html


My guess is that the terminology-related module is far from ready.
Maybe the current Glossary module can go with 2.0 and either an updated version or a new module could replace/complement it at a later time.

cheers,
-yves


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