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: [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:

    Labels: approved editorial ready-for-vote  (was: CFD editorial)

> 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: approved, editorial, ready-for-vote
>             Fix For: 2.1_cs01
> In " 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

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