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

Re: [xliff] Re: ITS module section(s) in the specification

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:01:45 +0100
Cc: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, XLIFF Main List <xliff@lists.oasis-open.org>, "public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org" <public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1A9374DF-CBB6-4DA2-A7B9-37891925213A@w3.org>
To: "Dr. David Filip" <David.Filip@ul.ie>
Hi David,

Am 24.11.2014 um 21:50 schrieb Dr. David Filip <David.Filip@ul.ie>:

> We need to talk about that in the next meeting..
> I have strong reservations to putting everything into the module..
> 
> Again, the detailed specification is not done and I am not sure if it makes logical sense to make the appendix normative. I tend to think not atm..


Am I missing something: If the specification is not finished, then the appendix should not be published, no matter if normative or not, no? 

Best,

Felix

> 
> If you put everything on the module, you're forcing people to go to the module even if they only want to know what is available w/o the module.
> 
> The module specifies everything that needs to be added to XLIFF to be able to fully support ITS.
> Putting other things there is confusing and unclean from the normative point of view.
> 
> The modules indeed ARE about what needs to be added. I don't see why this one should be different.
> 
> the relationship between ITS Translate and XLIFF Transdlate is not as simple as you suggest.
> 
> You yourself specified on the wiki that translate can be implemented as non extraction or hiding of stuff in codes.
> 
> So there is indeed nothing normative about the Translate description in XLIFF, it is merely a description of ways that are available in XLIFF to encode the category and what the extractors/mergers do about that is strictly implementation specific and I cannot see any sensible normative statements we could make about that.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> dF
> 
> 
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> OASIS XLIFF TC Secretary, Editor, and Liaison Officer 
> LRC | CNGL | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> cellphone: +353-86-0222-158
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> http://www.cngl.ie/profile/?i=452
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie
> 
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 22:02:14 UTC

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