[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xliff] Segmentation Modifications
I can do the change, that will free you time for other ones.
Did you double check the bidi mapping?
I’m not expert on bidi, so it’d be good to have more than my input on that part.
Yves, all I did not hear any dissent on that
As far as i checked this, your proposal is equivalent to what was there for csprd02 with two small exceptions that add to clarity:
1) You use an explicit bidi provision, so that people do not need to research the Unicode BiDi algorithm for merging segments with different dir
2) You also proposed to have an option to downgrade state on split segments, which makes sense to me
Otherwise it is is just reorganizing the PRs by the perfomred type of modification, which seems fine and I do not have a preference regarding the presentation of the provisions.
@Yves, Do you want to implement this proposal in the spec or should I?
Please let me know
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Yves Savourel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
As mentioned here: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xliff/201311/msg00138.html, I've been trying to implement segmentation modification for XLIFF 2.0 for a while now and I have a few comments.
For reference, the cs02 section for this is here:
--- The section (starting with its new title) keeps talking about "segmentation modification" and "resegmentation". Could we just talk about segmentation modification everywhere? The two things are the same thing.
--- That section has many constraints and processing requirements.
It was quite difficult to follow when I tried to implement it.
For example: (take a deep breath) "Modifiers MUST copy all attributes including values, except for the id and order attributes, from their original instances on or within the original <segment> element onto both instances on and within the resulting two <segment> or <ignorable> elements, except for attributes that do not have valid instances on the eventually resulting <ignorable> element."
To make a long story short and get to the point, I think that section should be re-worded to be simpler, organized by action (split or join), and completed with a few things (some subState PRs, explicit directionality conversion, etc.)
The proposed modified text is in the attached document.
I believe it covers what is needed, but it's a complex set of PRs and it should be carefully checked by all. For example I'd like a confirmation on the Unicode control characters used for the directionality conversion.