- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 23:26:31 +0200
- To: Dave Lewis <dave.lewis@cs.tcd.ie>
- CC: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
Hi Dave, Am 14.05.13 22:56, schrieb Dave Lewis: > Hi Yves, > > One the face of it this seems sensible, though I'm not clear what we > might loose, if anything, by missing the mtype mappings e.g. for > phrase and term. > > To clarify, would we still need to use ITS annotation with mrk in > cases where: > a) mtype="seg" since this is inserted by the XLIFF extractor > b) the annotation was added after the XLIFF file was generated from > the source, e.g. by an XLIFF conformant terminology tool, since <g> > and <bpt> as I understand relate specifically to inline annotations in > the source file, and thus a reference to the skeleton. > ? > > If (b) is indeed the case, then the mapping get more complex since one > has to support both cases, g/bpt and mrk, but you would still avoid > having them both together as in your example. > > Thoughts? > > I'll put this on the agenda for wednesday's MLW-LT call. > > This also brings up the procedural issue of the status of these calls. > If best practice is essentially IG business, do these calls become > joint IG/MLW-LT WG calls somehow? I very much would hope so - and also invite non MLW-LT people to attend. We need to make a strict line between input to the ITS 2.0 spec and other topics, but I will make that sure. For non MLW-LT people in the IG: during this "transition period", the only thing I would ask you to give a heads up to Dave / David / I whether you want to attend, since otherwise the phone bridge might not have enough capacity. Best, Felix > I guess we could just point to the minutes on the MLW-LT wiki until > the spec business is over then switch to recording the minutes on the > IG wiki. > > cheers, > Dave > > > > On 14/05/2013 17:25, Yves Savourel wrote: >> Hi Dave, David, all, >> >> (Posting on the IG list per >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-multilingualweb-lt/2013May/0105.html) >> >> The more I'm testing XLIFF with ITS and the more I'm having doubts >> that always using mrk to hold the ITS annotations that exist in the >> original document is the best solution. >> >> For example, for the following HTML code >> >> <p>Exampe of user name: <span >> its:allowedCharacters="[a-zA-Z0-9]">Aldus123</span></p> >> >> we recommend: >> >> <source>Exampe of user name: <g id="1"><mrk >> its:allowedCharacters="[a-zA-Z0-9]" >> mtype="x-its">Aldus123</mrk></g></source> >> >> and not: >> >> <source>Exampe of user name: <g id="1" >> its:allowedCharacters="[a-zA-Z0-9]">Aldus123</g></source> >> >> >> Here are some reasons why the second solutions would be best: >> >> - It's shorter, simpler. >> >> - Having the annotation does not add elements in the content (better >> for TM matches for many tools) >> >> - It's a lot easier for tools to update the inline codes if the ITS >> markup is on it instead of on a separate element. >> >> - The mrk element in 1.2 has no way to work with overlapping codes, >> so if for example you segment at the middle of a mrk span, it's veru >> difficult to represent the resulting annotation(s). >> >> - Using directly the <g>/<bpt> element also fixes the potential >> accidental case when some text get inserted between the <g>/<bpt> and >> the <mrk>. >> >> >> Sure there are cases, like for comments, terms, where for >> compatibility using mrk may bring some advantages. But it seem >> minimal, and I wonder if those cases could be seen as exceptions >> rather than trying to apply a more cumbersome rule to all cases. >> >> Thoughts? >> -yves >> >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 21:26:59 UTC