OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff] term annotation

Yves, this is just a note and therefore informative and not normative.
We do not forbid internal references other than modules, we just discourage them because cross-referencing of units and files is bad for streaming..
I believe that internal cross referencing of units and files should be banned at the general level..
The only admissible internal references should be within the same unit, group, or file.

Having a TBX at the file level (as with the Tilde service) and referencing it from unit data is not ideal, IMHO should be discouraged but NOT forbidden, I am with you re this.
That is why there is a note that non-normatively informs that the core ref is intended for external references rather than a PR or Constraint saying that is MUST NOT be used for internal pointing..

When introducing the refs in matches and glossary, I thought that the notes should explain to the implementer what is the intended difference between these possibly complementary reference mechanisms.

I agree that modules should not be mentioned anywhere in the normative text of core.
But mentioning them in notes is the same as using them in examples, i.e. non-normative just illustrating the relationship.

While the implementer of the glossary module is free to use the core term annotation (it is neither forbidden nor mandated). The user of the core ref should primarily use it for external references unless they know what they are doing and are aware of the implementation consequences.


On Jan 6, 2014 9:43 PM, "Yves Savourel" <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
Hi David, all,

During the discussion about the Translation Candidate annotation I've been looking at the Term annotation and noticed a change that,
I think, we never discussed.

The new note in the Term Annotation section says:
In this annotation type, the XLIFF Core ref attribute is intended to allow for referencing of
terminology resources that are external to the XLIFF Document.
The Glossary uses its own gls:ref to reference its corresponding spans in source content
the other way round.

I see two issues:

1) When did we decided to limit term references to external URIs?

The term annotation is about terminology, and terminology (as I've been sternly reminded several times by various people) is a lot
more than "localization glossaries" as defined in the Glossary module.

Therefore, it's perfectly valid for a future module or an extension to refer to some terminology data inside the document.

I think I've pointed the Tilde's TAWS example of TBX in 1.2 several times: http://taws.tilde.com/xliff. Why would we suddenly forbid

2) Visibly the glossary module as no more link to the core: We don't use the term annotation to point to a glossary entry; and a
glossary entry doesn't have to use a term annotation as its reference (glossary ref: "points to a span of source text within the
same unit, to which the glossary entry is relevant.", which includes non-term annotations).

So, IMO (and in line with separating core from modules when possible), we should avoid in the core to have references (other than
examples) to modules.

I won't fight for issue #2, but I think #1 is important to correct.


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:

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]