[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [QUAR] Re: ITS Mapping Update - What is the plan?
Yes, I agree with Felix. (and with David's previous email too). -ys -----Original Message----- From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:35 PM To: Renat Bikmatov (Logrus.Net) Cc: Yves Savourel; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [QUAR] Re: ITS Mapping Update - What is the plan? Hi Renat, Am 21.08.2014 um 20:39 schrieb Renat Bikmatov (Logrus.Net) <email@example.com>: > Hi Yves, > > We are considering to further develop our ITS 2.0 implementation project aimed at visualization of content and ITS metadata - this time for XLIFF 2.0 content. I asked the developer to look at the ITS 2.0 mapping schema for XLIFF 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping), and he has found several inconsistences and/or omissions. So my question is: > > Do you think it is worth for us to participate in further development and debugging of the current ITS-to-XLIFF 2.0 mapping specification (if this is still in progress) - OR- Does it make sense to wait until ITS 2.0 is implemented as XLIFF 2.x Module (hopefully, in near future)? Yves may have a different answer, here is mine: the mapping is being developed in the wiki and nothing else has happened in XLIFF TC about it. So it would make a lot of sense to know about the inconsistencies and omissions here before the mapping is finalized. Best, Felix > > Regards, > Renat Bikmatov | IT and Localization Solutions Architect | Senior Localization Project Manager | +7 (495) 646-3564, ext. 110 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yves Savourel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 5:48 PM > To: email@example.com > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: ITS Mapping Update > > Hi all, > > (CCing the XLIFF TC for information, as the idea is to make this into a module) > > An update on the ITS mapping for XLIFF 2: > > As discussed in Dublin last month and in this morning ITS-IG call, we are looking at classifying the ITS data categories into several classes: > > - the one for which there is a direct XLIFF mapping (so nothing to implement), > - the ones partially covered in XLIFF, > - the ones without equivalent in XLIFF > - the ones that are not metadata (and therefore not really to be 'mapped') > - and several ones not mapped yet > > The latest draft is here: > https://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping > > Feedback and suggestions welcome, especially on the data categories not mapped yet, like Directionality, Storage Size, etc. > > > Cheers, > -yves > > > > >