W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > October 2013

RE: ITS rules in XLIFF

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 13:07:55 -0600
To: "'Nathan Glenn'" <garfieldnate@gmail.com>
CC: <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001cebed9$88e45890$9aad09b0$@com>
> The other category that has the same source/
> target confusion problem is idValue, which is 
> currently mapped to resname on trans-unit.

For that one I think maybe it's a case of non-mapping.

We use idValue to link the content in the source document and the XLIFF document. In the vast majority of the case, the source text is replaced by the target text, so they have the same ID, and it make sense to use resname for this in XLIFF.

For the cases where the translation goes to a different node which has also an ID, as in your case, maybe it make sense to say that the idValue mapping applies only to source content ID because you are still likely to be able to use targetPointer to merge back the translation at the right node.

The important part is to be able to identify the couple source/target by an ID that is unlikely to change. I would say that even if the id of the source is not the id of the target, it still provides a unique way of identifying the pair.

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 19:08:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:30 UTC