Re: [xliff] term annotation

In the Introduction there was this emphasized paragraph:

All text is normative unless otherwise labeled.

I have tentatively expanded the wording of this paragraph as follows

All text is normative unless otherwise labeled. The following common methods are used for labeling portions of this specification as informative and hence non-normative:

Appendices marked as "(Informative)" in Title,
Notes (sections with the "Note" Title),

Warnings (sections with the "Warning" Title),
Examples (mainly example code listings but also any inline examples or illustrative exemplary lists in otherwise normative text),
Schema and other artifacts listings (the corresponding artifacts are normtive, not their listings).

I hope that this or improved wording can be approved in the meeting on January 14

Thanks and regards

David Filip, Ph.D.
=====================
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
mailto:davidf@davidf.org

www.davidf.org, http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfatdavidf

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:06 PM, David Filip <davidf@davidf.org> wrote:

Yves,

although I though that it is common knowledge among standard consumers that notes, warnings, and examples are not normative, I do not think there is harm in stating that explicitly.

Instead of the conformance section, I would add it in the intro where it says what parts are normative, I will be be back with details..

Cheers
dF

David Filip, Ph.D.
=====================
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
mailto:davidf@davidf.org
www.davidf.org, http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfatdavidf

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

Thanks David.

One editorial suggestion: Could we also have some text in the Conformance section that states that "Notes" are not normative?
Because I doubt many people know that.

We have this text:

[[
As not all aspects of the XLIFF specification can be expressed in terms of XML Schemas, conformant XLIFF Documents MUST also comply
with all relevant elements and attributes definitions, normative usage descriptions, and Constraints specified in this specification
document.
]]

And notes are nested in those definitions, usage descriptions, etc. It would be clearer to say for example:

[[
As not all aspects of the XLIFF specification can be expressed in terms of XML Schemas, conformant XLIFF Documents MUST also comply
with all relevant elements and attributes definitions, normative usage descriptions, and Constraints specified in this specification
document. Notes are not normative.
]]

Ideally normative and non-normative text should be in different colors (like black and blue), so everyone is clear about it. I'm not
suggesting we do this, but it would make reading so much clearer.

Cheers,
-ys

From: David Filip [mailto:davidf@davidf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2014 3:11 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] term annotation

Thanks Yves, I agree that it should be removed from the normative description, although the description does not contain a normative
keyword.
I will remove the word external from the description and it will be visible in the next printout.

Rgds
dF

David Filip, Ph.D.
=====================
cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
mailto:davidf@davidf.org
www.davidf.org, http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfatdavidf

On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:
Hi David, all,

> 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
That note echoes the modified description in the definition of ref (section 4.3.1.27, which is normative):

[[
When used in a term annotation, the URI value is referring to an external resource providing information about the term.
]]

The word "external" should be remove.

Cheers,
-ys

xliff message