Subject: Re: [xliff] Discussion re csprd 03 226
I'm not so sure there was a consensus on "to be associated" (with a physical, explicitly link).
> The discussions always reflected strong consensus that the XLIFF
> glossary is strictly local and to be associated with local occurrences.
The initial proposal from Rodolfo for example didn't even have a reference, just the list of terms in the <unit>.
I believe Joachim expressed also at the last call that my question/assumption was correct: that the optional aspect of ref was "to
allow list of terms without associating them explicitly with their occurrence in the content".
I can also think of some tools capable of finding glossary terms from a given content, without being able to make a physical link
between the occurrence and the definition. With your proposed new PR, they would not be able to create glossary entries. An
illustration of this, for example, is a format like XLIFF:Doc which has a glossary extension where such link is not available. That
representation then could not be mapped to XLIFF v2.
The drawbacks of not forcing to have a reference would be... well I can't think of any.
If the tool can't put the link, it does. Otherwise it simply doesn't and the result is still very useful to the translators.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Yves Savourel; email@example.com
Subject: [xliff] Discussion re csprd 03 226
Yves, regarding your comment 227, I think you found a gap in the glossary module spec and that the spec does not currently capture
I do not believe that the intent is to allow for listing glossary items without associating them with local occurrences. The
discussions always reflected strong consensus that the XLIFF glossary is strictly local and to be associated with local occurrences.
The reason that both refs are OPTIONAL in the module's elements' definitions is IMHO that XML Schema cannot express that *at least
one of them* is REQUIRED
So summarizing the above, I believe that it is correct that both candidates and glossary modules are using the same referencing
mechanism and that the normative intent should be disambiguated by adding a PR saying that at least one occurrence of the ref
attribute is REQUIRED per a <glossentry>, no matter if on the glossentry itself or a child <translation> element.
Please note that we do not REQUIRE exactly one occurrence of the ref, this is to allow for adding translations and corresponding
references once the target is populated.
All, Yves, please let me know if you agree with my interpretation of the intent and with the proposed way how to disambiguate it in
the current spec.
If I do not hear alternative proposals during today and tomorrow GMT, I will turn this into a CFD.
Thanks and regards
Dr. David Filip
LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
University of Limerick, Ireland
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: