xliff message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
- From: Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Kevin O'Donnell" <kevinod@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:38:55 -0400
I would suggest NFC being the default.
Chances are, information being authored in decomposed form of characters
is unlikely.
From:
"Kevin O'Donnell"
<kevinod@microsoft.com>
To:
Helena S Chapman/San
Jose/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:
"Dr. David Filip"
<David.Filip@ul.ie>, "Schurig, Joachim" <Joachim.Schurig@lionbridge.com>,
Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>, "xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date:
03/28/2013 03:03 AM
Subject:
RE: [xliff]
R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Sent by:
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Thanks for your input Helena.
I don’t have a strong position on establishing a default of “none”,
but am not sure exactly how frequently normalization will be required –
for the language-neutral rules that I am familiar with, normalization would
likely not be required, although I recognize there are many different scenarios
here.
In the examples you provided,
the XLIFF creator would need to specify their preferred normalization approach
when writing the rule. Do you have a suggestion/preference for what the
default should be, instead of “none”?
The question of using XLIFF
to interchange spoken language is interesting; I’m not sure if this has
been discussed previously. I’ll let others join in with their thoughts.
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Helena S Chapman
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:03 AM
To: Kevin O'Donnell
Cc: Dr. David Filip; Schurig, Joachim; Ryan King; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org;
Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Unfortunately, I don't entirely agree.
I understand what you are suggesting with "language neutral rules".
However, Unicode normalization should often be applied even when there
is no language rules that should be associated with it. For instance, when
someone send an English document which contains two distinctly different
characters "Ω"
vs "Ω", without normalization
and the correct intention, how would the tools/processes know what to do
with these two characters? When to treat them as two different characters
and when to treat them as the same? "none" for normalization
would tell them to treat these as different and if it's "NFD"
or "NFC", these two would be the same (not identical).
This is going to be increasingly common because:
1. We are more likely to receive true multilingual static content these
days. And, we don't have to look far for an example. In Canada, most content
has to be available both in English and French at the same time.
2. When we deal with multimedia type content, the use of more than one
language within the same context is even more frequent. In my own household,
a combination of Mandarin, Taiwanese, Japanese, and Hebrew are often mixed
in with English.
I am actually curious if the spoken language content interchange is out
of scope of XLIFF in general? What happens when we embed this into an interactive
format? Do we give our community the guideline that if one is working with
translation requests that are not limited to written languages, don't use
XLIFF for interchange?
From: "Kevin
O'Donnell" <kevinod@microsoft.com>
To: "Dr.
David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>,
Helena S Chapman/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "Schurig,
Joachim" <Joachim.Schurig@lionbridge.com>,
Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com>,
"xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: 03/21/2013
04:30 PM
Subject: RE:
[xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Sent by: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi David,
This is a fair point. I’d be interested in hearing from tool providers
about their preference here also.
I see two scenarios that are relevant here:
1. Global (language neutral) rules: these rules
are the most common here at Microsoft and do not differentiate per-language
(e.g. formatting rules). Therefore, rules of this nature would not require/benefit
from normalization
2. Language-specific rules: these rules, by
default, may benefit from normalization and indeed would help reduce false
positives if present
In my thinking, keeping “none” as default keeps the module simple and
avoids unnecessary overhead by the processing agent when not required.
If the XLIFF creator is implementing language-specific rules, then they
have an onus to specify their preferred normalization approach.
If we can surmise the likely prevalence of scenario 1 vs. scenario 2, that
may also indicate the likely best default setting here.
Other feedback/thoughts appreciated.
Thanks,
Kevin.
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:08 PM
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: Schurig, Joachim; Ryan King; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org;
Yves Savourel
Subject: Re: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Guys, after a brief spotcheck I just forwarded Asanka's minutes from Tuesday
to the list.
While there was no formal conclusion the discussion tended to inclusion
of normalization types along the lines of the size restriction module.
I think there was no doubt that we should provide a vehicle for conveying
the normalization type required.
There did not seem to be a clear consensus on the default value though.
I personally think that the default should NOT be "none". This
option for default seems vague and obscure to me.. It lets the processor
guess based on tribal knowledge what they should do not to produce tons
of false positives. I thought that we wanted to be naive implementer friendly..
:-)
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
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Helena S Chapman <hchapman@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
You summarized correctly of my own recollection of the discussion.
From: "Schurig,
Joachim" <Joachim.Schurig@lionbridge.com>
To: Ryan King
<ryanki@microsoft.com>,
Helena S Chapman/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: 03/20/2013
07:29 PM
Subject: RE:
[xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Hi Ryan,
while yours was my initial position as well, I do not think that it was
the outcome of the discussion in the TC. We do have already mention of
the normalization approach in the size restriction module, so it would
make sense to include it here, too, and I think this was the conclusion
on the Tuesday call. You could leave the default to “none” and declare
that this would leave it to the processing agent how to deal with the situation,
but if any of “nfd” or “nfc” values are set it should lead to more
specific behavior. Could this be an acceptable solution to all parties?
Cheers,
Joachim
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Ryan King
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. März 2013 17:58
To: Helena S Chapman
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org;
Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Yes, Helena, thanks for checking with me that. We did discuss it and feel
that the processing agent should be responsible for normalization of text
and so we will explicitly state that in the module.
Thanks,
Ryan
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Helena S Chapman
Sent: 3/20/2013 4:43 AM
To: Ryan King
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org;
Yves Savourel
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Did Kevin convey the comments about normalization to you? How do we expect
to deal with that in the spec?
From: Ryan
King <ryanki@microsoft.com>
To: Yves Savourel
<ysavourel@enlaso.com>,
"xliff@lists.oasis-open.org"
<xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 03/20/2013
02:41 AM
Subject: RE:
[xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Sent by: <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi Yves, all,
We suggest that for mustLoc, we enclose the source and replacement target
values in parenthesis, like so: mustLoc="(World) (Welt)"
If for any reason, a parenthesis is required to be translated, as a brace
for example, we could escape it like so: mustLoc="(\(World\)) ({Welt})"
Since we are generalizing the dblSpace to occurrences, then we could do
something similar there as well: occurrences="(|) (3)"
For example, where 3 pipes need to occur in the target for whatever reason.
Further comments or suggestions welcome.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan King
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:59 PM
To: 'Yves Savourel'; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Thanks Yves for the feedback. All valid and good comments, which we will
incorporate into the spec. As for the question on the mustLoc separator,
Kevin and I are discussing it and suggest something shortly.
Thanks,
ryan
-----Original Message-----
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Yves Savourel
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 5:01 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xliff] R37: Revised Validations Module proposal
Hi Ryan, all,
Some feedback on the Validation proposal (nothing major, just possible
suggestions):
-- strbegins and strEnds attributes:
Maybe names such as startsWith and endsWith may be a bit more descriptive
of the function?
-- dblSpace:
This seems to be a very specific check. Maybe it can be generalized a bit
without making it very different? For example, instead of dblSpace="3"
we could do occurrence=" |3" (or a better name than 'occurrence').
This would allow to check for more than double spaces.
-- mustLoc:
How do you represent the '|' if it needs to be in the left part of the
value?
-- existsInSource, disabled:
So far I think XLIFF is using yes|no for Boolean rather than true|false.
Maybe we could be consistent?
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]