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

FW: [its-2.0-testsuite] Incorrect ITS in XLIFF files (#2)

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 08:19:44 -0600
To: <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004e01cec9b1$989614d0$c9c23e70$@com>
Forwarding this to the ITS-IG list for feedback.

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:yves@opentag.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 6:46 AM
To: 'w3c/its-2.0-testsuite'; 'w3c/its-2.0-testsuite'
Subject: RE: [its-2.0-testsuite] Incorrect ITS in XLIFF files (#2)

Hi Nathan,

> I just pulled the latest, and I still see the same problem with all of 
> the locqualityissue files. I don't believe the mapping has been 
> updated in any way- it doesn't mention locQualityIssueProfile[Ref], so 
> I think the ITS-namespaced attribute should just be what is in the ITS 
> spec, especially since it's a set pattern that anything ending in Ref 
> is a URI.

Good catch: the 'Ref' is missing: that is likely a bug. It should be there. As you say: we just use the same ITS attributes for LQI in XLIFF. I'll fix that in our writer and re-generate the examples (it may take a few days).
Note that the mapping document simply doesn't have an example with locQualityIssueProfileRef but it's useable there too since it's part of the ITS namespace. I'll try to add it in an example.

> I also found something else- in locnote[3,4,8,9]xml.xml.xlf, there are 
> trans-units that use both <note> and its:locNoteRef (which isn't 
> listed in the mapping, but I assume it would be fine provided the 
> source was its:locNoteRef).

We haven't really finished the discussion on how to work with locNoteRef (as you can see it's still listed as an issue in the mapping).

> Both were generated from an its:locNoteRef, and the <note> is prefixed 
> with REF:. I understand that this is generated by a third party, but 
> it turned out to be important for my application.
> The REF: suffix isn't in the mapping, and when my application tried to 
> convert the XLIFF ITS into HTML5 ITS, I ended up with elements that 
> had both its:locNote and its:locNoteRef, making the documents invalid.

The <note> with the REF: prefix pre-date ITS 2.0 and the mapping. That was how our tools were trying to map a ITS 1.0 loc-note reference using the XLIFF <note>.
The advantage of using <note> is that it exists in XLIFF, so XLIFF readers can use it. But that would work only for non-inline notes.

Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 14:20:13 UTC

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