That sounds OK to me. -yves From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 7:35 AM
To: Dr. David Filip
Cc: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xliff] Call for Dissent re csprd03 226, was:Re: [xliff] Discussion re csprd 03 226 Since no one else chimed in, I am calling for dissent for this one. I propose that we do nothing in response to this comment I will consider this resolution approved unless I hear dissent by Monday, March 17, EOD PDT
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland telephone: +353-6120-2781 cellphone: +353-86-0222-158 facsimile: +353-6120-2734 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie> wrote: Thanks for the input, Yves, From my point of view this is an omission. If I say always, it is shorthand for ever since the module had actually become usable.. If others feel same as you, i.e. that we want tools to be able to add glossary entries without associating them with unit content that is also fine with me, as it won't require any change in the spec at all, which is good for the upcoming csd ballot. I can see that you are at loss with drawbacks of letting it be... IMHO the drawback is that you cannot enforce local relevance of the glossary if you do not enforce referencing. This will allow the implementers to make the module data a dumping ground without ever thinking what they are putting in. Anyways, if no one supports my view during today or tomorrow, I will make a Call For Dissent to do nothing in response to this comment.
======================= LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS University of Limerick, Ireland On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote: Hi David,
> The discussions always reflected strong consensus that the XLIFF
> glossary is strictly local and to be associated with local occurrences.
I'm not so sure there was a consensus on "to be associated" (with a physical, explicitly link).
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.
Cheers,
-yves
From: xliff@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xliff@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Dr. David Filip
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Yves Savourel; xliff@lists.oasis-open.org
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
the intent.
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
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 |