W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org > November 2014

Re: ITS module section(s) in the specification

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:32:03 +0100
Cc: XLIFF Main List <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>, public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <1A1130CC-B19E-40F4-8912-EDAFE5CED4B4@w3.org>
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>



Am 24.11.2014 um 14:16 schrieb Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>:

> Hi David, all,
> 
> (I'm starting a different thread on this topic, to avoid mixing it with the Localization-Note one)
> 
>> I think it is unresolved as yet, if the ITS appendix will 
>> be informative or normative. However, there is very little what 
>> can be normatively stated about XLIFF features as being used to 
>> express ITS features.
> 
> I'm not sure why we would make non-normative the descriptions of how existing XLIFF constructs map to ITS data categories. The ITS module is not just about the parts we have to add, it describes all data categories.
> 
> Having a list of the data categories and for each say how it is represented in XLIFF (through existing constructs and/or the itsm namespace) seems simple. And in that case having, for example, the description for Translate being non-normative while the one for LQI being normative seems difficult to justify.

+1.

- Felix


> 
> Why make things complicated? Is translate='yes|no' the only way to represent the Translate data category? Yes, so why not stating it normatively? In addition one can say that all ITS data categories need to be complemented with itsm:annotatorsRef, so none is completely represented in the XLIFF core.
> 
> Cheers,
> -yves
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 13:34:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:11:31 UTC