Re: XLIFF maping layout

Am 19.05.13 13:23, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> Sure. itsxlf is a bit long but would be fine.
> or itsm? ixlf?

If the length is ok, how about itsxlf?

Best,

Felix

>
> -ys
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:34 AM
> To: Yves Savourel
> Cc: public-i18n-its-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XLIFF maping layout
>
> Hi Yves, all,
>
> thanks for starting this. One question on I think all the three (XLIFF general, 1.2, 2.0) mapping pages: they say
>
> "itsx: is a schema prefix for the namespace http://www.w3.org/ns/its-xliff/"
>
> wouldn't it be less confusing to use a different prefix for its-xliff?
> The itsx prefix is mostly used for extensions to ITS 1.0 and ITS 2.0 in general, with the namespace uri http://www.w3.org/2008/12/its-extensions
>
> Btw., I have updated the extension namespace "its-extensions" doc to now cover also ITS 2.0.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
> Am 19.05.13 02:18, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>>> Also, I suggest we progress the XLIFF1.2 and 2.0 mapping on different
>>> pages...
>> Mapping for XLIFF 1.2 is here:
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_1.2_Mapping
>>
>> Mapping for XLIFF 2.0 is here:
>> http://www.w3.org/International/its/wiki/XLIFF_2.0_Mapping
>>
>> We can replace the text in the old table by pointers (like it's done for Translate) as we make progress.
>> Then we can just point to the two pages when all is done.
>>
>> -ys
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Sunday, 19 May 2013 11:27:47 UTC