[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (XLIFF-67) LQI comment vs Localization Note
Bryan Schnabel created XLIFF-67: ----------------------------------- Summary: LQI comment vs Localization Note Key: XLIFF-67 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-67 Project: OASIS XML Localisation Interchange File Format (XLIFF) TC Issue Type: Bug Components: other Affects Versions: 2.1_csprd04 Environment: http://markmail.org/message/37xmhk3zbon3i7w3?q=csprd04+list:org%2Eoasis-open%2Elists%2Exliff-comment+order:date-backward Reporter: Bryan Schnabel Assignee: Yves Savourel Fix For: 2.1_cs01 In "5.9.6.4 Localization Quality Issue" there is a note saying: "If human reviewers or other QA agents (Enriching Agents from the XLIFF specification point of view), need to insert general comments pertaining to whole structural elements such as paragraphs, sections, or files rather than to specific inline portions of source or target content, the Localization Note data category is more suitable." I'm not sure this is wise. I would expect a QA agent to use the LQI data category, not the Localization Note data category. Maybe we should say nothing instead of hinting at other ways to do thing? -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2.2#6258)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]