XLIFF Mapping - status

Hi everyone,

I've edited one of the missing sections earlier today: Language Information:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#Language_Information
Feedback is welcome, as usual.

There is still one sub-section (Preserve Space for inline elements) to write.
It should be easy and I'll try to do it tomorrow.

Here is a summary of the pending issues that I can see:

--1) How to map back termInfoRef when you go from XLIFF to the original format.

--2) How to map back locNoteRef when you go from XLIFF to the original format.

--3) Should we allow the annotations currently defined to be in <mrk> to exist in <g>-type elements (when it's doable). I don't have
the time to fight for that one, so I'll drop it (for now).
 
--4) There is no way to use <mrk> across segments. I think Arle run into this issue with another project. The question is: do we
want to recommend a mechanism, or let tools do whatever they feel like?

--5) Can we have MT confidence at a level finer than the segment?
For this one the consensus seems to be 'no'. So I assume we'll just do that.

--6) Do we want to provide a set of ITS rules to process an XLIFF document with a pure ITS processor?
Technically that is what we are trying to achieve with the ITS+ITSXLIFF namespaces. We have a start of that here:
http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping#ITS_Rules_to_Process_an_XLIFF_1.2_Document. But I'm not sure if it's
needed. It'd be certainly nice to have.

It would be nice if we could make some progress on all those issues by emails.

I may have missed some whole or pending issue: please let the list know if it's the case.

Felix volunteer to re-read the whole document to check for consistency in the solutions (and general sanity). But it would be nice
to have more than one pair of eyes for this.

Thanks,
-yves

Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 15:07:12 UTC