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] The Terminology data category

Am 12.11.2014 um 14:47 schrieb Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>:

> Hi Felix,
>>> Should we forbid or allow ref and value to co-exist for 
>>> an ITS Term annotation in XLIFF?
>> How is the interpretation of term annotation in XLIFF that includes 
>> both ref and and value? Are both concatenated? 
> The ref attribute holds a reference to information on the term, while value holds a short definition.
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/xliff/xliff-core/v2.0/xliff-core-v2.0.html#termAnnotation
> There are no provision to make them explicitly work together, it's simply not forbidden to have both.
>> If yes, one could say: when mapping back to the original file, 
>> combine the information and create in the original file a place 
>> for the information.  
> I suppose that could work. But you'd be losing data: the reference link (well I suppose it could be copied in the info too, but it
> would not be 'live').
> So we would recommend to map back to a global rule (much harder to do).
> Maybe 'recommend' is wrong, it could be a note suggesting one way to solve the issue.
> So does it means you think we should allow ref and value to co-exist even for ITS-specific term annotation?
> How would you express that in the ITS rule set for pure-ITS processor?

That is not possible, indeed, because of the constraints you described („Zero or one of the following: termInfoPointer, termInfoRef, termInfoRefPointer“).

„I'm wondering if we should simply provide a reminder note stating that if an annotation has both ref and value and if you want to
merge the data back into the original format, you have to choose which of ref or value to create in your document as both cannot
co-exists in an ITS-only world. As for the ITS rules file: maybe we can have the rule check if both exist and pick arbitrarily the
ref to map back.“

That sounds like the simplest solution. Not perfect but I don’t see a workaround.

- Felix

> Cheers,
> -yves

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