[OASIS Issue Tracker] (XLIFF-28) Comments in the draft

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-28?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=65429#comment-65429 ] 

David Filip commented on XLIFF-28:
----------------------------------

Yves, in many cases we have links to the ITS definitions. But the annotatorsRef is specific, we have several other Constraints in the spec that are referencing annotatorsRef values, when data categories are making use of the tools annotation. I feel very strongly that the ITS annotatorsRef definition should stay in the spec as is.

> Comments in the draft
> ---------------------
>
>                 Key: XLIFF-28
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-28
>             Project: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: ITS Module
>    Affects Versions: 2.1_csprd02
>         Environment: http://markmail.org/thread/jzdqfm5c6hgofjbu
>            Reporter: Yves Savourel
>            Assignee: David Filip
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: Proposed, editorial, work_required
>             Fix For: 2.1_csprd03
>
>
> There are quite a few (more than a dozen) embedded comments in this latest
> draft:
> e.g: "COMMENT: MAKE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE TWO HANDLINGS, ONE IS NOT TO REPRESENT
> THE DATA CATEGORY, THE OTHER IS IN THE MODULE. THE
> EXTRACTION IS FOR ITS PROCESSORS GENERATING XLIFF, THE DIRECT REPRESENTATION IS
> FOR XLIFF PROCESSORS."
> Some, like the one above, seem to indicate that there are still relatively
> important parts of the text that needs to be
> edited/added/etc.
> I assume this means there will be a csprd03 regardless of the disposition of the
> comments for csprd02. Is that correct?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)