[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=65669#comment-65669 ] 

Yves Savourel commented on XLIFF-28:
------------------------------------

I think implementers are better served with the description of the annotatorsRef in a single location: In the ITS recommendation where it is defined. The drawbacks and dangers of re-wording a definition outweigh clicking on a couple of links to get to the original.

>  Plus the annotatorsRef Constraints need referenced from XLIFF normative descriptions for datacats that require ITS tools annotation.

The data categories that require annotatorsRef do not need to refer to what are the constraints of the value itself, they just need to reference annotatorsRef. The actual identifier to use is stated in the data category constraint already. How the overall value of annotatorsRef works is better specified once: in the ITS recommendation.

In any case: If the TC decides to allow the duplication of the description, then it must be a true duplication, not a re-writing like it is today.


> 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
>             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)