RE: [xliff] Call for Dissent was Re: [xliff] csprd01 comments 11 and 41

Subject: RE: [xliff] Call for Dissent was Re: [xliff] csprd01 comments 11 and 41

Thanks David for the explanations. I agree with state being required, but I would personally not make approved required and I would remove the processing requirement using translate=yes and review=yes as a "macro translated state". That is just too prescriptive, especially when just state=translated can serve this purpose and even more so if we make it inheritable from higher up in the tree structure.

My 2 cents,
Ryan

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Dr. David Filip
Sent: ‎8/‎8/‎2013 6:34 PM
To: Ryan King
Cc: Dr. David Filip; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org; Tom Comerford
Subject: Re: [xliff] Call for Dissent was Re: [xliff] csprd01 comments 11 and 41

Thanks, Ryan

let me explain below

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Ryan King <ryanki@microsoft.com> wrote:

Hi David, All,

In principle, I agree with the PR that initial is inconsistent with approved=yes and final with approved=no. However, I think that there is some overlap in meaning between reviewed and approved=yes compared to final and approved=yes. In other words, I think reviewed and approved=yes can be enough to flag that the segment is “ready to be used”.

Sure there is an overlap

Since approved is just a simple flag and easy to maintain, we made it required. And approved yes is intended as always sufficient readinness signal

Maybe this still needs to get more explicit in the spec.

At the same time we did not want to bake to much process logic into the spec, as you warned us not to..

So people who will want to benefit from all four states eventually introduce substates for even finer process granularity will probably not use approved=yes earlier than on state=final

I still don’t think this PR on <unit> is appropriate…

2.2.2.5.

•A <unit> element is considered to be translated when all its <segment> children with translate attribute not set to no have the approved attribute set to yes.

…state=translated approval=no and state=translated approval=yes both indicate my <unit> is translated, the former just isn’t approved.

This is a very old (long stable) part of the spec and I don't think it should be changed. This is using translated as a macro state as per one of the initial definitions. It is actually NOT about the value of the state attribute that is even not defined on unit.

This is also a reason to make the flag required and vice versa, the state cannot be used to define this macro-state because it is optional.

Thanks,

Ryan

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:18 PM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Tom Comerford
Subject: [xliff] Call for Dissent was Re: [xliff] csprd01 comments 11 and 41

Hello, everyone,

since this solution as implemented in the current working draft, has received support and incited no dissent in today's informal meeting, I am making an official mailing list call for dissent.

Unless someone proposes another solution by Thursday, August 10 PDT COB, I will consider comments 011 and 041 resolved by my proposed and implemented edits.

Best regards

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 Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote:

Thanks Tom, for exposing the possible combinatorics.

Unfortunately, there was no discussion on this during the last month.

I am going to implement in the spec the following and we will need to discuss if the solution is satisfactory in the TC meeting.

Please discuss this in this thread prior to the meeting, if you do not like the proposed solution.

The changes I am implementing are the following:

1. Making the state attribute (flag) obligatory.

2. Adding PRs that make initial inconsistent with approved=yes and final with approved=no. In all other cases the required flag has the priority.

3. I am also adding a PR as per the generalized sub-attribute behavior, i.e. the obligation to update or delete the sub if you are changing the state.

Background thinking

My thinking is that the role of the attributes is distinct and since @approved has been used to define the macro state translated of a unit consisting of approved segments, I assume that the flag has priority and should be required rather than optional.

Use of state is optional, yet necessary for those who need finer granularity and the prerequisite for using an even finer grained private state machine.

Finally, the general sub attribute PR debate seemed to support the generalized approach I am using for the substate PRs here.

Thanks for your attention

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 Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Tom Comerford <tom@supratext.com> wrote:

Hi all,

This is in regard to csprd01 comments 11 and 41, concerning the possible conflict between values of the state and approved attributes for the segment element.

A segment may have state="initial", in which case we should expect approved="no". Similarly, if approved="yes" it implies that the state must be "translated" and "reviewed"; else approval is not possible. A segment that has state="final" should never have approved="no". This situation is ambiguous and leaves it to implementers and ultimately to processing agents to interpret conflicting values; i.e. by giving priority to one or the other of the attributes.

Here's how I interpret these conditions; please let me know if you disagree. First, if a segment state="translated" then it's subject to review, so cannot yet have been approved. If the segment state="final" then it must have been approved. What remains unclear in my mind is the intent of state="reviewed": does this imply approved="yes"? If so, then the approved attribute correlates directly with a specific value of the state attribute and is superfluous. On the other hand, if we can have state="reviewed" and it can be either approved or not approved, then we need processing requirements to resolve the ambiguity.

There are several possible ways to resolve the conflict between these two attributes:

1. add a processing requirement to prohibit inconsistent combinations of the state and approved attributes

2. add a processing requirement that the approved attribute applies if and only if state="reviewed"

3. expand the list of values for the state attribute to clarify the distinction between reviewed/unapproved and reviewed/approved, and drop the approved attribute

4. clarify the meaning(s) in the values of the state attribute, and drop the approved attribute

Of these, I think (3) and (4) are less likely to result in ambiguity, though any of them will clarify to implementers the intent of these attribute values. Comments, clarifications and critiques welcome.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom Comerford
tom@supratext.com

+1 856 787 9090

Supratext LLC
43 Michaelson Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

www.supratext.com

xliff message