RE: [xliff] Segmentation modification

Ok. I’ll make the change.

From: Dr. David Filip [mailto:David.Filip@ul.ie]
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:09 AM
To: Yves Savourel
Cc: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [xliff] Segmentation modification - finalize

Thnaks, Yves, no problem with that

as was also agreed by consensus in the meeting right now :-)

Cheers

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

http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452

mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

Hi David, all,

+1 to drop the second bullet as it is redundant.

As for the heading, to your proposal:

* When Modifiers perform either the split or the join operation:

I would prefer:

* When Modifiers or Mergers perform either a split or a join operation:

Rational: The two types of agents involved are Modifiers and Mergers, not just Modifiers. One could say a Merger is also a Modifier,
but since we make the distinction in this section (they have different constraints) we should keep that here too.

Cheers,
-ys

From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 7:07 AM
To: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Segmentation modification - finalize

There was call for dissebt on the BiDi solution.
The BiDi solution seems stable especially there was strong consensus about dropping dir from source and target.

The impact of this on Segmentation Modification PRs was simple, the dir related PRs were dropped.

However, there seems to be a medium severity editorial issue with the last group of the segmentation modification PRs

Current text:
• In all cases:

o If any <segment> or <ignorable> element of the <unit> had a <target> child with an order attribute prior to the segmentation

modification, the <target> child of all <segment> and <ignorable> elements in the <unit> must be examined and if necessary their
order attributes updated to preserve the ordering of the target content prior the segmentation modification.

o All inline codes and inline annotations must be adjusted to respect the notations described in sections Usage of <pc> and

<sc>/<ec> and Splitting Annotations.

There are two issues IMHO
1) Since the intro bullet does not address any specific type of agent, it should address all Agents according to our Processes and
Agents definitions and Conformance Clauses. This must be wrong as the sub-bullets really are only relevant for Modifiers.

2) The second sub-bullet is redundant because the requirement has been expressed as the introductory Contsraint on top of the
section.

Constraints

o Integrity of the inline codes must be preserved. See the section on Inline Codes and on Annotations for details.

Therefore I propose to change the above as follows:

New proposed text:

• When Modifiers perform either the split or the join operation:

o [no change to this sub-bullet] If any <segment> or <ignorable> element of the <unit> had a <target> child with an order attribute

prior to the segmentation modification, the <target> child of all <segment> and <ignorable> elements in the <unit> must be examined
and if necessary their order attributes updated to preserve the ordering of the target content prior the segmentation modification.

o [second sub-bullet deleted]

I hope that this can be approved in the meeting today

Thanks
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
http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
mailto: david.filip@ul.ie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

xliff message