[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
[ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/XLIFF-67?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] David Filip updated XLIFF-67: ----------------------------- Proposal: Won't fix (was: Don't fix) > 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: Improvement > Components: other > Affects Versions: 2.1_csprd04 > Environment: http://markmail.org/thread/37xmhk3zbon3i7w3 > Reporter: Yves Savourel > Assignee: David Filip > Priority: Minor > Labels: editorial, request_tc_discussion, work_required > 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]