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

RE: ACTION-447: Make a batch transformation of the test suite to xliff

From: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:03:15 -0700
To: 'Mārcis Pinnis' <marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv>, "'Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List'" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005a01ce0ea9$e2df7400$a89e5c00$@com>
Hi Mārcis,

I missed a few comments in your docx file.
Here are the file with my additional notes (nothing major).

(BTW: your comment about Domain  in domain4html.html is interesting.
I'll try to look at the test output and see if it matches the info output in the XLIFF file.
If it does, this may be an interesting overriding case.)

-ys



-----Original Message-----
From: Mārcis Pinnis [mailto:marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:24 AM
To: Yves Savourel; 'Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List'; Dave Lewis (dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie)
Cc: Felix Sasaki (fsasaki@w3.org)
Subject: RE: ACTION-447: Make a batch transformation of the test suite to xliff

Hi Yves, all,

I had a look at the examples. I believe that either I am missing something (not understanding where the ITS 2.0 data is in the XLIFF documents) or there is some backwards compatibility of content lost when converting from the HTML/XML examples to XLIFF.

1. I had a look at the Terminology part and I could not find ITS 2.0 related terminology annotation in the XLIFF documents. I have attached my findings to this e-mail.

2. With the Locale Filter I see that instead of having ITS 2.0 mark-up, the whole fragment has been removed and replaced with a placeholder (is that because it is not possible to add Locale Filter mark-up in XLIFF at all?). This does not preserve the content, but filters out fragments based on ITS 2.0 consumption/production Use Case scenarios (which is I guess an internal process and not for data exchange purposes). And ... it actually does not show an XLIFF document with the Locale Filter data category metadata in it (that was what we wanted to see, but the examples, I believe do not show that). Is this because XLIFF would not be able to handle ITS 2.0 annotation or because of some other reasons (I am a bit confused here ... so I would like to clarify)?

Some other findings (more in the attached file) 3. The Language Information as I understand it, will be fully passed on to xml:lang (that is clear).
4. The Domain metadata seems to be transformed from ITS into an OKAPI internal structure.
5. The Elements Within Text information as I understand it, is just structural, so no mark-up is necessary (that is clear).

Maybe I have just misunderstood what the XLIFF examples would contain? I had the understanding that the transformation to XLIFF would preserve ITS 2.0 metadata. Did I understand it wrong?

Then ... I had a look also at the files in the "roundtrip-example" directory. As I understand from Yves e-mail, these are not valid XLIFF files, right?!

I still had a look at the examples that contained terminology annotation. I believe Terminology is used incorrectly:
<mrk its:terminology="yes" its:termInfoRef="#ge1">Arizona</mrk>
The attribute is its:term="yes" rather than terminology... (or am I again missing out some information?)

The files seemed not to have Domain and LocaleFilter metadata in them - it would be great to see these categories in action as well.

Best regards,
Mārcis ;o)

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com]
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:52 PM
To: 'Multilingual Web LT Public List Public List'
Subject: ACTION-447: Make a batch transformation of the test suite to xliff

Hi all,

I've done this action item.

A batch file as well as the XLIFF output have been added to GitHub:
https://github.com/finnle/ITS-2.0-Testsuite/commit/294018ba576799dcbee7b9566da83837dd69f4ae

Notes:

-- The XLIFF outputs are often identical because the test files are just different ways to markup the same content.

-- The XLIFF output often make little sense because the input exercises only one data category. For example, a storage size limitation set on a span ("inline") element will not show up on an inline element in XLIFF because there is no information in the input file that says the span element is 'within text' (since the test case is about the storage size). IHMO the output are rather useless.

-- Most data categories have output, but only when the extraction use them. For example there is no output for directionality because, while the Okapi ITS engine process and provides that data category, the filter does nothing with it.

Cheers,
-yves
 




Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 14:04:00 UTC

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