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

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

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 07:38:45 -0600
To: "'w3c/its-2.0-testsuite'" <reply+i-19946960-ce89ce98b2c7d8064a53d31d29d47a83d9091e75-1448256@reply.github.>, <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01ceccd0$88ad5d90$9a0818b0$@com>
The advantage of using XLIFF <note> is that XLIFF processor will be able to use it even if they don’t support ITS.


Maybe the solution then is to use <note> when the Locnote is not a reference, and use the ITS markup when it is a reference.




From: garfieldnate [mailto:notifications@github.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:07 PM
To: w3c/its-2.0-testsuite
Cc: ysavourel
Subject: Re: [its-2.0-testsuite] Incorrect ITS in XLIFF files (#2)


Yes, I did notice the mapping note on locNoteRef. Whatever happens, though, I think it will be better to have separate places to put locNote and locNoteRef. Using special text content to differentiate two categories has the risk of hitting a corner case. Someday, someone, somewhere might begin their actual locNote with REF:, and they will be puzzled why it keeps being rendered as a locNoteRef. Or they'll figure it out pretty quickly, and you'll get an email asking how to begin a locNote with REF:.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/its-2.0-testsuite/issues/2#issuecomment-26358065> .  <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/nvs-vse_AjE_52DIkMMQpiz-ed5h4E6Uf1W8aJCPT6srv-oBC5atmPC3SvkpXKVB.gif> 
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2013 16:06:52 UTC

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