RE: [xliff] Match type and subType

[Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>]

Thanks for the clarification, Yves. I understand a match of any similarity can come from a tm. My question was about how to capture an icm coming from a tm since they both unique values. This statement clears it up, though, thanks:

...*without other specific qualifier*. So if your match is coming from a TM and is contextual, one would use 'icm'

Maybe you could add that statement "without other specific qualifier" to the value definition for tm.
Still +1 on your proposal.


-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:21 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] Match type and subType

hi Ryan,

> Going from my experience, which I understand is not everyone's 
> experience, you can have a tm that stores an entire XLIFF document, 
> not just segments from the document. In this way, it is entirely 
> possible that your 100% match can be from a tm and be either exact 
> (segment match) or in context (contextual match). In your list below 
> tm and icm are mutually exclusive. However, using the subtype attribute, you could define type="tm" and subtype="abc:exact"
> or subtype="abc:context" (I'll avoid calling it ice here), so I think 
> this proposal will cover the scenario adequately.

The type 'tm' does not indicate an exact match, just a match coming from a translation memory without other specific qualifier. So if your match is coming from a TM and is contextual, one would use 'icm'.

Exactness is indicated by the similarity attribute.

cheers,
-yves


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php