RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals

[Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>]

Thanks Yves, see my inline to your inline. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you document and get this added to the specification. Do you feel we need to have a roll call vote on these items in the next TC call?

Thanks,
Ryan

-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:48 PM
To: Ryan King; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] 1.2 to 2.0 Gaps and Proposals

Hi Ryan, all,

Sorry for the delay: I'm just swamped and can't find the time to read emails anymore.

> 1. Be able to specify optional custom values for match type in 
> <mtc:matches>

I suppose some mechanism similar to the subType we're using in inline codes and other places could allow for custom values while making sure a top-level category is also declared.

Since we are discussing values for match type: I'm still not convinced that the latest list makes sense:

am - Assembled Match
ebm - Example-based Machine Translation
idm - ID-based Match
ice - In-Context Exact Match
mt - Machine Translation
tm - Translation Memory Match

- 'Example-based Machine Translation' should not be there IMO: it's just MT, what type of MT is not relevant (but could be a candidate for the subtype)
- 'In-Context Exact Match' IMO should be 'in-context' only: the fact that's an exact one is captured in the similarity (and it could be an in-context fuzzy too).

[ryanki] I think this makes sense. For example, there's no reason each of these couldn't be valid (note ic instead of ice):
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”ic/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”mt/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”100.0” type=”tm/xlf:exact”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”ic/xlf:fuzzy”>
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”mt/xlf:fuzzy”>	
<match id=”1” similarity=”75.0” type=”tm/xlf:fuzzy”>

> 2. Support Reference Language in <mtc:matches> • Allow zero, one or 
> more <mtc:matches> at each extension point, because you might have 
> both recycling and reference language data.

I assume you mean: allow more than one <mtc:matches> where we currently allow one? Not in *all* extensions point. right?

[ryanki] exactement :)

> • Add an optional attribute reference=”yes|no” with no as default. 
> Additionally, PR for a “reference match” would be to allow an xml:lang 
> on the target different from the document and allow the <source> not 
> to be present as it would be redundant information with the core 
> <source>, e.g. Spanish reference for Quechua might look like this:

- reference='yes\no' and allowing a different language for xml:lang in those with reference='yes' seems ok to me.
- source not being present... I don't know. If we do that for those 'matches' why not for the normalmatches as well? If the source is the same. 
I think we mandated the source originally that's to simplify processing: testing for the presence of not of the source may be cumbersome for some processors (XSLT maybe?).

[ryanki] in principle, we could carry around the redundant <source> the only side effect really being bloat to the XLIFF (but metadata will do that anyway...) I suggested it this way simply because <alt-trans> the previous element used for reference language in 1.2, does not require <source>, so this was for parity.

We would need to update the definition of what a "match" is as well.

hope this helps,
-ys



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