OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [xliff] ITS: Preserve space and Language Information

I was using “its” as the prefix for the XLIFF 2.1 ITS Module URI (not the ITS W3C namespace).

After all it’s just a prefix. From the XLIFF viewpoint it is the “ITS Module” so “its” is rather logical.

But we could use another prefix if that seems better to the majority.




From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 11:19 AM
To: Dr. David Filip
Cc: Yves Savourel; XLIFF Main List; public-i18n-its-ig
Subject: Re: [xliff] ITS: Preserve space and Language Information


HI Yves, David, all,


one clarification question: Yves used in his examples the its:lang and its:space attributes. Is the idea to add things to the OASIS to be hosted ITS namespace or to add attributes to the W3C ITS namespaces? In the past we discussed the former.






Am 24.10.2014 um 10:55 schrieb Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>:

Thanks, Yves, inline


On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com> wrote:

Going from a structural element to an inline one in the Terminology case is easy: you don't lose anything.
But forcing some inline formatting information to drive segmentation is completely different and very restrictive.
In addition to losing granularity you also assume the segmentation is done by the extractor agent.

I don't understand what losing granularity means, as I understand granularity, you get more of it IMHO, if you make whitespace handling and language info structural..

Anyways, I see your point that it is not ideal to force Extractors to segment in order to handle a relatively frequent extraction issue.

And i do see value in deferring the segmentation issues by putting the its info inline..

I see plenty of technical documents where inline formatting mixes spans of true text with fixed-space sections. Elements like <code>, <var>, <kbd>, etc. in HTML (and their counterparts in DITA, DocBook, etc.) are examples of such spans where the style often requires preserving the spaces. There is no way we can reasonably use segmentation to apply that information.

The bottom line is that if we didn't have <sm/> we would not have this discussion and everyone would see xml:space and xml:lang as perfectly natural in <mrk>. This tells me the issue is how to represent those two features with <sm/>.


Trying to rationalize how we can avoid inline cases is just wishful thinking.

Ideally what we should have done in 2.0 was to allow xml:lang and xml:space in <mrk> and declare XLIFF Core attributes ‘space’ and ‘lang’ for <sm/> to work around the scope issue.

But we are at 2.1 now, and we can't modify the Core.

Yes, we cannot 

So, in my opinion, using the ITS module to get an inline solution seems to be the best we can do now.

I agree
And I think it is actually better to have the inline semantics of these attributes defined in one module..

So I am OK with defining those two  attributes in the its module namespace

Still, as I said in the other thread, I'd keep the informative description of what you can do with core only, of course moved into the partial support section..




Dr. David Filip


OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer 


University of Limerick, Ireland

telephone: +353-6120-2781

cellphone: +353-86-0222-158

facsimile: +353-6120-2734


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]