RE: XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #03 - No PRs in glossary module

Thanks David, we (Microsoft) definitely advocate the need to have metadata on the glossary module since this is the only way we will be able to carry around rich terminology that goes beyond simple Term | Translation | Definition, such as part-of-speech, usage notes, product version a term is used in, etc.

Thanks,

Ryan

From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2012 5:09 PM
To: Ryan King; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Fwd: XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #03 - No PRs in glossary module

Ryan, re your note on the metadata module. I pointed out earlier today as an issue that the glossary module is not capable of carrying metadata..

See below..

Cheers

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Subject: XLIFF 2.0 spec - dF Issue #03 - No PRs in glossary module
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org

Dear owner, all.

[P.S.: Since all *.org links stopped working on my machine due to some strange DNS error, I cannot lookup the owner on our wiki :-(]

[I vaguely recollect that the owner might be Rodolfo (?)]

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.

Other issues with this module:

[Please start a separate thread if you want to discuss this issue..]

03.01)

This module is unable to carry any metadata (except the mandatory source attribute on <defintion> which does not seem sufficient), I guess that provenance attributes should be specified at all levels or at least top two levels.

Alternatively, the module could get extensible at the same levels (all three or two respectively)