- From: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:28:56 +0100
- To: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Yves, sounds good. This way, we can leave any specific mapping, say to linport, to any best practice specifically addressing that. Would you be able to add that suggested note to the terminology mapping? thanks, Dave On 23/07/2013 08:07, Yves Savourel wrote: > Hi Dave, all, > >> 1) the terminology is available online by referencing the URL >> 2) the terminology is held within the XLIFF file - so a >> relative URL would be appropriate >> 3) the terminology is held in another file held in the same >> package, e.g. Interoperability Now TIPP or Linport container >> or proprietory. Here, a URL assuming a common directory >> structure would be needed, together with some convention on how >> the package is packed/unpacked (we touched on this in the recent >> call in relation to LINPORT with Jorg) > Case 1 is fine. > Case 2 is fine: We don't need to say anything special I think. This mapping document shouldn't tell how to represent an information > that we can't know about. > Case 3 is also fine. And that's also up to the creator of the package (whatever its format is) to point to the proper place. > > To me, it seems we just need to add a note like this: > > "If needed, the value of the ITS termInfoRef attribute must be adjusted to point to a resource accessible from the XLIFF document. > The location and format of this resource is decided by the tool creating the XLIFF document." > > Cheers, > -ys > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 02:29:14 UTC