W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org > February 2013

RE: [ISSUE-55] Re: updates provenance mapping and best practive in ITS-XLIFF mapping

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:45:40 -0700
To: "'Dave Lewis'" <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
CC: <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001ce0e53$9712f700$c538e500$@com>
Hi Dave,

> So:
> a) we might have to support LRQ for mrk in (1) but could 
> rule it out of scope for (2)
> b) allowed characters for target would be in (2) and could 
> use global rules, but perhaps isn't the case for (1) (unless we 
> include the case where we are importing from another bi-text format.)

I still think using global rules in any use case is bad: adding information to an XLIFF document means it may be read by another XLIFF tool, so the case (2) can lead to a case (1).

Let's put it this way: what can we do with global rules we can't with local markup?

This also goes back to the discussion about using only global rules to define general mapping and avoiding in for specific instance of data. For example you do <its:provenanceRule selector="//source" etc.../> on a file with only trans-unit/source elements and all is well. Then another tool (not ITS aware) adds alt-trans entries, and suddenly you have also all trans-unit/alt-trans/source elements affected by the provenance.

I would try to stay away from global rules for XLIFF. (actually try to stay away from global rules that are instance-specific in general).

cheers,
-yves
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 03:46:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 9 June 2013 00:25:08 UTC