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

RE: Issue-55: XLIFF mapping - Terminology and termInfoPointer

From: Mārcis Pinnis <marcis.pinnis@Tilde.lv>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:30:05 +0200
To: Yves Savourel <ysavourel@enlaso.com>, "public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org" <public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AC6FD4BB9BB02540AC7322091A6C3B5472B0FA1D2A@postal.Tilde.lv>
Hi Yves,

>> --- Do we want to have a <source>/<target>-level terminology info?

Why not? In our localisation workflows translators heavily rely on external term bank information when they identify terminology. If such information can be wisely passed on to the CAT tools and then translators (for instance, through ITS 2.0 metadata included in XLIFF documents), it would make life easier for them...

Best regards,
Mārcis ;o)

-----Original Message-----
From: Yves Savourel [mailto:ysavourel@enlaso.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:54 AM
To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue-55: XLIFF mapping - Terminology and termInfoPointer

More on the Terminology mapping:

We say we should use <mrk mtype='term' [its:termInfoRef (or xyz:itsTermInfo-like attribute)]>term</mrk> That's good but:

--- Can we put other ITS data categories in that same <mrk> too?
-> why not?

--- How do we express its;term='no'?
Is it even needed in XLIFF?

--- Do we want to have a <source>/<target>-level terminology info?
If no: then what do we do with something like <html:p its-term='yes'>word</html:p>?

We could 'move the info to an <mrk>, but then things become *very complicated* to map back and forth.

any thoughts
-yves



Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 09:30:35 UTC

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